Practice Areas & Industries: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Litigation has been a core part of the firm's practice since 1927. Our Litigation Practice today consists of approximately 250 attorneys nationwide to serve our clients' needs. Sheppard Mullin litigators possess exceptional trial and appellate skills, in-depth knowledge of state and federal courts at all levels, and practical business judgment, all of which contribute to our consistent delivery of cost-effective results.

Sheppard Mullin's Litigation Practice involves all aspects of business and commercial litigation, including antitrust, creditors' rights, banking and financial institutions, construction, communications, general business, insurance, intellectual property, products liability, professional liability defense, real estate, environmental, securities, white collar criminal defense, and trust and estate litigation.

Our litigators represent clients in a broad spectrum of industries such as computers and information technology, financial services, aerospace, manufacturing, transportation, communications, pharmaceuticals, advertising, print and broadcast media, franchising, petroleum production and refining, real estate, insurance, construction, and food and beverage manufacturing, among others.

The attorneys in our Litigation Practice also have substantial experience in various vehicles for dispute resolution, including litigation, arbitration, and mediation.


 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

California Court of Appeal Lowers the Bar on Ascertainability Requirement in Consumer Class Actions
Robin A. Achen, March 30, 2015
In Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc., Case No. 073059, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 214 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015), a California Court of Appeal reversed the denial of certification of a putative class alleging violation of Civil Code Section 1747.08 of California’s Song Beverly Credit Card Act....

Not So Small After All: Call Fire Uses Common Carrier Defense to Defeat Rinky Dink TCPA Class Action Case
David S. Almeida,Mark S. Eisen, March 30, 2015
Last month, in Rinky Dink, Inc. v. Electronic Merchant Systems, et al., No 13-cv-01347, 2015 WL 778065 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2015), online voice and text provider CallFire became one of the first (if not the first) TCPA defendants to avoid liability for pre-recorded calls through the common carrier...

Never Let Them See You Coming—Keys to Setting Up Witnesses Interviews In An Internal Investigation
Juan C. Castañeda, March 27, 2015
With those words, the silver-haired senior-level executive of the customs broker I was investigating for bribery let me know that his guard was down. In fact, he seemed relieved and almost eager to help me, a young lawyer that reminded him of his nephew.

Ninth Circuit Holds that Under Nevada Law, a Prior Stockholder’s Litigation of Demand Futility Precludes Another Stockholder From Litigating Demand Futility In a Subsequent Derivative Action
Alejandro E. Moreno,John P. Stigi, March 24, 2015
In Arduini v. Hart, 2014 WL 7156764 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents a stockholder from relitigating a prior adverse determination concerning demand futility in derivative action brought...

First Circuit Reaffirms FCA’s “First-to-File” Bar as a Broad Jurisdictional Limit
Matthew W. Turetzky, February 25, 2015
In early December 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reaffirmed that circuit’s broad interpretation of the False Claims Act’s “first-to-file” bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), in United States ex rel. Ven-a-Care of the Fla. Keys v. Baxter...

No Proof Necessary: SCOTUS Rules Defendant’s Notice Of Removal Under CAFA Need Not Include Evidence of The Amount In Controversy
Eric J. DiIulio,Anna S. McLean, February 25, 2015
On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in holding that a defendant need not supply evidence of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No....

Now That That’s Settled: The Status of Class Action Settlements in the Seventh Circuit after Pella, Radioshack and NBTY
David S. Almeida,Mark S. Eisen, February 25, 2015
Over the last several months, Judge Richard Posner has authored a triumvirate of opinions reversing the district courts’ approval, over objections, of consumer class action settlements—Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014), Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th...

Removing All Doubt: The First Circuit Clarifies the Conditions Triggering the 30-Day Removal Window When the Earlier, Initial Pleading Does Not Disclose Grounds for Removal
John M. Landry, February 25, 2015
In Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-1937, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20548 (1st Cir. Oct. 24, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the conditions triggering a defendant’s 30-day window to remove a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332,...

Second Circuit Clarifies that Allegations of Direct Fraudulent Representations Are Not Necessary for Market Manipulation Claims Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
Tyler E. Baker,Manuel F. Gomez,John P. Stigi, February 24, 2015
In Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., No. 14-3983, 2015 WL 400547 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015) (“Fezzani II”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified its opinion in Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 716 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Fezzani...

Supreme Court Update - Hana Financial v. Hana Bank
Gazal Pour-Moezzi,Carlo F. Van den Bosch, February 24, 2015
Sheppard Mullin’s intellectual property group prevailed before the United States Supreme Court in the trademark matter entitled Hana Financial v. Hana Bank. 574 U.S. --- (2015). Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court, affirmed a Ninth Circuit ruling that the doctrine of trademark...

City of Los Angeles Outsources Defense of CEQA/Land Use Lawsuits To Private Law Firms - Developers To Foot The Bill
Jack H. Rubens, February 17, 2015
On December 16, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously authorized the City Attorney to establish a Land Use/CEQA Panel, which will consist of five municipal law firms, to defend the City in CEQA and land use lawsuits that challenge the entitlements for private development projects, and to require...

Ninth Circuit Rejects Use of Preemptive Litigation to Validate Federal Approvals
James Rusk, February 17, 2015
The Ninth Circuit has rejected a “novel litigation strategy” that Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., employed in an effort to preempt a possible litigation challenge to federal approvals that Shell received for Arctic oil exploration. After receiving the approvals, but before any suit had been...

The Ninth Circuit Holds That Res Judicata Bars State Recovery of Restitution for Members of a CAFA-Compliant Class Action
Bruce A. Colbath, January 07, 2015
In California v. Intelligender, LLC[1], the Ninth Circuit ruled that final judgment in a CAFA-compliant class settlement barred the State of California from seeking restitution on behalf of members of the settlement class for losses caused by Intelligender’s allegedly false advertising of its...

Harry and Phil Are Right . . . Pull the Plug on D.R. Horton
Terry Potter, December 05, 2014
I understand the need to “push the envelope” when you sit in the position of being a prosecutor, as does the General Counsel for the NLRB, but the Board itself does not sit in that role. Nor should it ignore the legal directions of the Supreme Court, and other courts of this land, which...

District Court Weighs in on Level of Integration Required to Shield Health Care Collaborations from Section 1 Scrutiny
Helen Cho Eckert,David R. Garcia, December 01, 2014
In Medical Center at Elizabeth Place v. Premier Health Partners et. al, Case No. 12-cv-26 (S.D. Oh. Oct. 20, 2014), the Southern District of Ohio held that previously-competing health care systems who join together in a revenue-sharing arrangement are incapable of conspiring with each other under...

Agricultural Cooperative Antitrust Litigation Continues to Mushroom
Don T. Hibner, November 28, 2014
Pennsylvania District Court certifies five year ruling for interlocutory appeal, that mushroom cooperative is not immune from antitrust claims based upon “advice of counsel” argument. In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00620, (E.D. Pa. October 17,...

New Commercial Division Rule Seeks to Streamline Privilege Log Requirements for Litigants
Sarah E. Aberg,Lindsay Colvin, October 10, 2014
Effective September 2, 2014, the New York Supreme Court implemented a major change to the Commercial Division rules governing privilege logs submitted during the course of litigation. (See New York Supreme Court, Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts: Rule 11-b (July...

Who’s a “Foreign Official”? Supreme Court Could Clarify Key FCPA Term
Fatema K. Merchant, October 09, 2014
On August 14, 2014, Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification of a key term in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Among other arguments, Esquenazi and Rodriguez (the “Petitioners”) state that the FCPA...

Second Circuit Holds Forum Selection Clause Supersedes FINRA’s Mandatory Arbitration Rule
Robert S. Friedman,Manuel F. Gomez, September 24, 2014
In Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Schools Financing Authority, No. 13-797-cv, 2014 WL 4099289 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a forum selection clause in a broker-dealer agreement superseded FINRA’s mandatory arbitration...

Who’s a “Foreign Official”? Supreme Court Could Clarify Key FCPA Term
Fatema K. Merchant, September 24, 2014
On August 14, 2014, Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification of a key term in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Among other arguments, Esquenazi and Rodriguez (the “Petitioners”) state that the FCPA...

A (Second) Lawsuit Seeks to Compel Statutory Timeframe for Administrative Law Judge Review of Medicare Claims Appeals
Lynsey Mitchel, September 17, 2014
On August 26th, the Center for Medicare Advocacy filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The complaint alleges that, as implemented, the Medicare administrative review process is in violation of Medicare statutory obligations and the Fifth...

Second Circuit Defines “Customer” for Mandatory FINRA Arbitration
Manuel F. Gomez,Jeff Kern, September 10, 2014
In a case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Abbar, No. 13-2172, 2014 WL 3765867 (2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2014), established a bright-line definition of “customer” under FINRA’s mandatory arbitration...

Sovereign Litigation in Latin America: Top Five Issues To Think of When Doing Business With a Latin American Country
Juan C. Castañeda,Alejandro E. Moreno,Neil A.F. Popović, August 28, 2014
“We are in the soup” exclaimed, federal judge Thomas Griesa, referring to Argentina allegedly defaulting on its sovereign bonds. And so we are.

Supreme Court’s Latest Interpretation on Late Payment Interest
Sharon Xu, August 27, 2014
The Supreme People’s Court of China recently issued an interpretation on how to calculate the interest accrued on delayed payment - Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of Several Issues Concerning the Applicable Law for Calculating Interest On Delayed Payment in the Enforcement...

SD3 v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. - District Judge Axes Complaint Alleging Table Saw Safety Standards Conspiracy
Leo Caseria, August 06, 2014
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but not necessarily mightier than the table saw. On July 15, 2014, in SD3 v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-191 (E.D. Va.), District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed antitrust claims by SD3 and Sawstop against several manufacturers of...

Southern District Magistrate Judge Clarifies FLSA “Computer Professional” Exemption
Rachel J. Tischler, August 05, 2014
In an April 2014 decision in the Southern District of New York, Olorode v. Streamingedge, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 6934 (GBD) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2014), employers were given some clarification on the Computer Professional overtime exemption available under the Fair Labor Standards Act...

Only When a Permit is Required: The Supreme Court Caps the EPA’s Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stationary Sources
Matthew Klinger, July 28, 2014
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act when it attempted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources not already subject to a permit controlling emissions of more...

California Supreme Court Limits Application of Commissioned Employee Exemption
Thomas R. Kaufman,Anna M. Stancu, July 24, 2014
On July 14, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. that employees qualify for the California “commissioned employee” exemption in a pay period only if they receive “earnings [that] exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) times the minimum wage”...

Delaware Court of Chancery Rejects Indemnification Sleight of Hand
Thomas Michael,Ariel Yehezkel, July 24, 2014
In Branin v. Stein Roe Inv. Counsel, LLC, C.A. 8481-VCN, 2014 WL 2961084 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a vested right to indemnification may not be rescinded by a subsequent amendment to the governing corporate document.

Fur Flies and West Hollywood (“WeHo”) Fur Ban Is Upheld By Federal Court
Jordan Grushkin,Theodore C. Max, July 16, 2014
West Hollywood, California’s controversial law banning the sale of fur within city limits survived a legal challenge by a luxury retailer last month. A federal court dismissed the action brought by Mayfair House Inc., a retailer that sells high-end clothing products, including products made...

Supreme Court Rules Compliance with FDA Labeling Guidelines Does Not Bar Lanham Act False Advertising Suits - POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co.
Bruce Colbath,Gregg Re, July 02, 2014
In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court on June 12 announced that compliance with food labeling guidelines promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration will not operate as a bar against false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act. In its decision, the Court made clear that...

U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community et al.
Christine L. Swanick,Wilda Wahpepah, June 13, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court (“Court”) issued a 5-4 decision today in a case with implications for Tribal-State relations and the resolution of disputes under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (“IGRA”). The Court in Michigan v. Bay Mills...

FTC v. Actavis on Remand: A New Chapter
Don T. Hibner, June 11, 2014
District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT) (N.D. GA April 21, 2014).

Developer-Prepared Cost Comparisons Can Show Economic Infeasibility Under CEQA
Deborah M. Rosenthal, June 05, 2014
In a precedent-setting decision, the First District Court of Appeal approved the alternatives analysis used to support a massive 35-year landfill expansion in the Suisun Marsh. Challengers argued that more evidence was required to reject a reduced-size, shorter-term alternative on the ground of...

First Circuit Affirms District Court’s Exclusion of Event Study as Unreliable Under Daubert
John M. Landry,John P. Stigi, May 26, 2014
In Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Int’l Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC , No. 12-1750, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8994 (1st Cir. May 14, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s exclusion of an event study as unreliable under...

How Are Your Physicians Compensated? Stark Law + False Claims Act = Halifax Paying $85 Million
Charles L. Kreindler,Barbara E. Taylor, May 26, 2014
On March 10, 2014, just days before trial, Halifax Hospital Medical Center and Halifax Staffing, Inc. (collectively “Halifax”) entered into an $85 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice resolving allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by...

New Decision Clarifies Summary Judgment Standards for Off-the-Clock Claims
Thomas R. Kaufman, May 26, 2014
On May 20, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, issued a decision affirming the summary judgment granted as to one of the individual class representatives in a putative class action for overtime pay resulting from off-the-clock work. As explained below,...

Once More Unto the Breach: the FCC Calls for Comments on Revamping Net Neutrality Regulations
Douglas A. "Drew" Svor,Brian D. Weimer,Paul A. Werner, May 26, 2014
Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Verizon v. FCC, which struck down several key elements of the Federal Communication Commission’s 2010 Open Internet Order, the Commission yesterday released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that initiated a renewed effort to foster and...

The Eleventh Circuit Interprets Prior Express Consent Under The TCPA
Mercedes A. Cook,Shannon Z. Petersen, May 26, 2014
In Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., No. 13-10951, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has provided some guidance on the parameters of “prior express consent” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act...