| Biography | Allen Garrett has significant experience in complex business litigation, arbitration, and appellate matters. Substantive areas of experience include antitrust and trade regulation, commercial contract disputes, consumer class actions (including "no injury" class actions), commercial insurance coverage disputes, enforcement of restrictive covenants, products liability, toxic torts, and trade secret litigation. His trial level experiences include state and federal court actions in numerous jurisdictions, as well as actions consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In recent years Mr. Garrett has litigated a number of cutting-edge issues in connection with state consumer fraud statutes, federal jurisdictional disputes, and the protection of competitively valuable information. Mr. Garrett has litigated matters involving consumer protection statutes of numerous states, including several multidistrict cases, and has specific expertise regarding California's consumer protection laws. In addition to consumer fraud class action, he has defended punative class actions and other multi-claimant actions brought by businesses, and he also has experience with franchise disputes. Recently, he has begun to counsel clients regarding the drafting and enforcement of class-action waivers, forum selection clauses, and choice-of-law provisions that increase the likelihood of defeating class certification. Mr. Garrett has extensive appellate litigation experience. In addition to briefing appeals to the United States Supreme Court and numerous state and federal appellate courts, he has argued a number of appeals and provided advice in connection with countless others. Mr. Garrett frequently has lectured on appellate briefing issues and recently was a member of the Eleventh Circuit Appellate Practice Institute panel on the topic of "Writing the Winning Brief." His appellate brief-writing skills have been praised by professional appellate consultants. Mr. Garrett also has participated in significant pro bono matters at both the trial and appellate level, including in recent proceedings before the United States Supreme Court and the Georgia Supreme Court. As a result of his continuing commitment to pro bono matters he received the firm's Managing Partners' Pro Bono Award in 2007. Professional & Community Activities Southern Center for Human Rights, Board Member Industries Technology & Software Experience MJCM, LLC v. United Community Banks, Inc., The firm served as lead counsel for United Community Banks, Inc., one of the largest bank holding companies located in Georgia, in a million dollar commercial contract dispute against a overdraft management services provider, prevailing at summary judgment before the trial court and by summary affirmance on appeal before the Fifth Circuit.
MJCM, LLC v. United Cmty. Banks, Inc., 212 Fed. Appx. 323 (5th Cir. 2007). EyeWonder, Inc. v. John Abraham, The firm served as lead counsel for EyeWonder, Inc. in the Southern District of New York to enforce restrictive covenants when its former head of Western regional sales left to join the Los Angeles office of EyeWonder's arch-competitor, New York-based EyeBlaster, Inc. EyeWonder also initiated an arbitration proceeding in Atlanta (based on the terms of the contract). The Southern District of New York granted EyeWonder a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration, preventing the former employee from soliciting EyeWonder's customers. After nearly a year of contentious proceedings, the arbitrator ruled in EyeWonder's favor, not only enjoining the former employee from breaching the restrictive covenants in his agreement, but also ordering him to pay all of EyeWonder's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the arbitration. The arbitrator also concluded that all of the employee's counterclaims against EyeWonder were "without merit" and summarily dismissed them.
EyeWonder, Inc. v. John Abraham, No. 1:08-cv-03579 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 14, 2008). Scouten v. Amerisave Mortgage Corp., The firm served as lead counsel for Amerisave Mortgage Corp. in a dispute with a former employee who sued for violations of Georgia RICO, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Amerisave prevailed on a motion to dismiss all claims at the trial court level, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Although the defamation claims ultimately were allowed to proceed to discovery, the dismissal of the Georgia RICO claim seeking treble damages and the emotional distress claim was affirmed. The defamation claims ultimately were settled on terms favorable to the mortgage company. In re: Teflon products liability litigation, Jointly represented DuPont in the Teflon multi-district litigation. In that case, two dozen putative classes of consumer plaintiffs sought recovery of approximately $5 billion based on DuPont's alleged failure to disclose purported defects in Teflon cookware. Our firm undertook a detailed legal analysis of the claims asserted in each of the class action complaints, as well as providing overall strategic recommendations in connection with merits and class certification issues. In December 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that none of the putative classes would be certified. The plaintiffs sought to appeal the decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court denied their petition for permission to appeal on March 10, 2009.
In re: Teflon Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:06-md-01733-REL-CFB (S.D. Iowa filed Mar. 3, 2006). Premium Mortgage Corp. v. Equifax Information Services, et al., Served as counsel to Equifax. The plaintiff, a mortgage broker, alleged that a subsidiary of Equifax Inc. misappropriated trade secrets belonging to it and other mortgage brokers around the country. The plaintiff sought certification of a nationwide class. The court granted Equifax's motion to dismiss on preemption grounds, and the decision was affirmed by Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Mortgage Corp. v. Equifax Info. Sys., et al., No. 07-6349 (W.D.N.Y.). Settlement fraud litigation case for global chemical manufacturer, Represented global chemical manufacturer in "settlement fraud" litigation, securing numerous favorable rulings in connection with hundreds of claims brought in Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii. BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee, The firm served as lead counsel for BellSouth in a highly-publicized dispute involving Sprint's hiring of the second highestranking corporate officer at BellSouth. The case involved claims for breach of non-competition agreement, and "inevitable misuse" of trade secrets; it also raised significant issues regarding the interplay between litigation and compulsory arbitration. We obtained an injunction prohibiting the executive's disclosure of confidential information to his new employer and limiting his involvement in certain activities where the confidential information might be used or disclosed. The executive has since left the competitor.
BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee, 265 Ga. App. 589, 595 S.E.2d 99 (2004). Nunnally v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, The firm served as lead counsel for Equifax, one of the United States' largest credit reporting agencies, in a putative class action challenging compliance with the reinvestigation reporting requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The district court denied the client's motion to dismiss but certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. The Eleventh Circuit unanimously reversed and ordered the claims dismissed with prejudice.
Nunnally v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 451 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2006). Matsuura, et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Represented DuPont in "settlement fraud" case alleging federal RICO, fraud and other state law claims arising out of DuPont's alleged fraudulent inducement of hundreds of settlements of product liability claims in the early 1990s. Between 1996 and 2000, approximately 70 plaintiffs asserted "settlement fraud" claims against DuPont in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii or in Hawaii state court, and DuPont asserted claims in federal court for breach of the settlement agreement. Ultimately, all of the federal cases were consolidated under the Matsuura case style. DuPont originally prevailed in the district court on motions to dismiss the "settlement fraud" claims based on provisions in the settlement agreements. When those rulings were superseded by a ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court, DuPont filed motions for judgment on the pleadings which led to a certified question proceeding before the Hawaii Supreme Court. After the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled, the District Court granted a number of dispositive motions filed by DuPont, as did the Hawaii state court in a related case. During the pendency of appeals from those decisions, the vast majority of the Hawaii claimants settled. Similar dispositions results in Florida and Georgia litigations. Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, Represented E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company before the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a victory. The court held that a plan administrator of a qualified retirement plan was entitled to rely on the plan's beneficiary designation forms, rather than having to honor attempted beneficiary designations made through a divorce decree. Trade secret misappropriation and breach of license for an aerospace manufacturing company, Trial counsel representing an aerospace products and defense parts manufacturing company, plaintiff, in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of license case. Allegations against the defendant involved claims that the defendant misused the plaintiff's trade secrets-technical data relating to a U.S. Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft (of which the plaintiff is the original equipment manufacturer)-to perform a direct commercial sales contract to refurbish and modernize aircraft owned by the Republic of Korea. Jury verdict for plaintiff. Case settled after trial. Defense of settlement fraud case for global chemical manufacturer, Defended an international chemical manufacturer in a "settlement fraud" case, where federal RICO, fraud, and other state-law claims had been made in connection with the company's alleged fraudulent inducement of hundreds of settlements of product liability claims in the early 1990's. Between 1997 and 2000, over 200 plaintiffs asserted "settlement fraud" claims against the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida or in Florida state court, and the company asserted claims in federal court for breach of the settlement agreement. Ultimately, all of the federal cases were consolidated. The company prevailed in the district court on motions to dismiss the "settlement fraud" claims based on provisions in the settlement agreements. When those rulings were superseded by a ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court, the company filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in a "lead case," which the District Court granted and which the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The company then filed summary judgment motions to have the rulings in the lead case applied to the other claimants' cases. The District Court granted those motions in 2004. During the pendency of appeals, the overwhelming majority of the Florida claimants settled. On November 27, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment rulings as to the thirty-three remaining Florida claimants. *Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend Publications 19 February 2007, Opinions, and Dangers, in MDL Interlocutory Appeals
Source: National Law Journal, Articles 01 May 2004, State Antitrust Practice and Statutes
Source: ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Articles 01 January 2001, Avoiding the Fifth Amendment Dilemma: Stays and Protective Orders
Source: American Bar Association Publishing, Articles 01 January 1995, What's Driving the Vertical Integration
Source: American Druggist, Articles News 29 September 2010, Kilpatrick Stockton's Allen Garrett Appointed to the Board of the Southern Center for Human Rights, News Releases Events 23 October 2008, Eleventh Circuit Appellate Practice Institute, Events |