John Beisner
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20006
Phone: +1-202-383-5370
Fax: +1-202-383-5414
-
Brian Anderson
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20006
Phone: +1-202-383-5309
Fax: +1-202-383-5414
-
Debra Belaga
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA, 94111-3823
Phone: +1-415-984-8750
Fax: +1-415-984-8701
-
Brian Boyle
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20006
Phone: +1-202-383-5327
Fax: +1-202-383-5414
-
Brian Brooks
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20006
Phone: +1-202-383-5127
Fax: +1-202-383-5414
-
Richard Goetz
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA, 90071
Phone: +1-213-430-6400
Fax: +1-213-430-6407
LAWYERS
- Related Practices
-
Chemtura Corporation
CIGNA
Fannie Mae
HCA, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
Merck & Co., Inc.
Veizon Communcations
|
Class Actions, Mass Torts, and Aggregated Litigation
Convinced that frivolous lawsuits and forum-shopping for “plaintiff-friendly” jurisdictions were undermining the US civil litigation system, O’Melveny determined that a federal solution was needed to combat the laws and procedures skewed against defendants. Serving as the catalyst for class action reform, O’Melveny proposed legislation expanding federal court jurisdiction over class actions. Firm researchers canvassed county courthouses nationwide to retrieve data for articles written by our lawyers, who also testified at more than a dozen House and Senate committee hearings. The White House and business groups rallied behind the idea and, although opposition from the American Tort Lawyer Association was strong, on February 17, 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was signed into law. The general counsels of State Farm and General Motors credited O’Melveny as the legislation's “architect,” And the firm’s involvement was widely covered in the media. Our experience defending class actions and other aggregated litigation is unparalleled. Over the past 30 years, we have defended hundreds of consumer class actions in 45 states. We have also served as lead counsel in many precedent-setting cases, including our representation of Ford Motor Company in the Bridgestone and Firestone tire products liability litigation, which was the first time a federal court held that a class certification decision precluded subsequent motions for class certification in state court.
Key Facts
- The most important attribute we bring to class action representation is creativity. Despite our vast experience in litigating these matters and our library of precedents, we are never satisfied with litigating class actions the same way each time. For example, we helped develop the concept of “classwide proof,” the “no injury” doctrine, the applicability of the economic loss doctrine to state consumer protection act claims, and the use of injunctions to stop re-litigation of federal court class certification decisions, all of which are important weapons for defendants forced to litigate putative class actions. Our ingenuity is crucial in the post-CAFA age because plaintiffs continually employ new strategies to overcome the strict federal adherence to the predominance requirements of Rule 23.
- We advocate groundbreaking punitive damages strategies and have reduced our clients’ exposure to punitive damages awards dramatically. In the Exxon Valdez litigation, we pioneered the concept of “limited fund class action” to reduce the scope of punitive damages. In Smith v. Ford, we persuaded the Kentucky Supreme Court to reduce a $20 million punitive damages award to $15 million, and then persuaded the US Supreme Court to vacate the punitive award based on instructional and other errors in the state court system.
- We regularly appear before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL Panel) and have substantial experience coordinating class actions from around the country in a single proceeding, thus facilitating the management of large-scale proceedings. We regularly serve as national coordinating counsel for clients faced with multiple class actions, including Merck and Ford Motor Company.
- We work closely with lawyers in our nationally renowned appellate practice, who focus on appellate issues related to class actions and other aggregate litigation. For example, while we were defending ExxonMobil against an asbestos-related “mass action” in West Virginia, our appellate lawyers filed a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court challenging the mass action procedure on constitutional due process grounds. Although the Court denied the petition, the arguments it raised, coupled with the publicity it brought to the mass action process, helped ExxonMobil favorably settle thousands of asbestos claims.
- Members of our team frequently serve as authors for amicus curiae briefs filed by groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Securities Industry Association, the American Benefits Council, the ERISA Industry Committee, and the National Conference of Insurance Legislators.
Practice Strengths
-
Antitrust and Competition
-
California 17200 Actions
-
Consumer Petitions
-
Environmental Law
-
ERISA Litigation
-
Financial Services
-
Financial Services Class Actions
-
Health Care and Life Sciences
-
Insurance
-
International
-
Labor and Employment
-
Product Liability
-
Securities
|
Asiana Airlines
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
Ford Motor Company
The Lincoln Electric Company
National Chamber Litigation Center
|