- Manufacturing & Transportation
- Business Litigation
- Product Liability
- Toxic Tort
|Contact Info||Telephone: 314.345.6231|
|University ||University of Missouri - Saint Louis, B.S., Criminology & Criminal Justice, summa cum laude, 2005|
|Law School||Saint Louis University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2010 Academic Excellence Award, Civil Procedure I|
|Admitted||2010, Missouri; 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri; 2011, Illinois|
Professional Associations and Memberships
The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
•Illinois State Bar Association
•The Missouri Bar
As a member of the Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation industry team, Melina's practice involves commercial and business litigation, with a focus on toxic tort and product liability law. She has experience in all aspects of litigation, from initial filing and discovery to disposition. Melina has extensive knowledge in handling fact discovery as well as in motion practice.
She defends clients in toxic tort and product liability actions alleging personal injuries and property damage from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), asbestos and lead exposure. In addition, Melina has also represented healthcare industry clients in various commercial disputes.
Active in her community, she handles numerous pro bono cases for various St. Louis charitable organizations.
Awards and Recognitions
•Missouri Bar Pro Bono Wall of Fame, 2012
•St. Louis Volunteer Lawyers and Accountants for the Arts
•Women's Safe House
•Operation Excel YouthBuild
•Part of the team (involved heavily in research and motion practice) that obtained a significant victory for a Fortune 500 global provider of technology-based agricultural products in a three-plaintiff polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) case. Plaintiffs alleged they suffered from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma as a result of PCBs in their blood, which they ingested through the food chain. Client ceased manufacturing and selling PCBs nearly 40 years earlier, but plaintiffs claimed that it knew or should have known that PCBs would persist in the environment. The client moved for summary judgment on the basis that it had no duty to plaintiffs, their alleged injuries were not foreseeable, and the PCBs entered the environment because of acts over which client had no control. The court entered summary judgment in favor of client.
11.06.13 The Sun, the Moon and the Air: How Much Deference Should a Court Give to Agency Classifications?
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation Blog
In The News
9.15.10 Husch Blackwell Welcomes 16 Recent Law School Graduates This Fall
|Profile Visibility |
|#633 in weekly profile views out of 9,485 lawyers in St. Louis, Missouri|
|#103,338 in weekly profile views out of 1,710,323 total lawyers Overall|