Thomas D. Nevins: Lawyer with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Thomas D. Nevins


Peer Rating
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & Reviews

Practice Areas

  • Antitrust and Trade Regulation
  • Class Action Defense
  • Litigation
University University of California, Berkeley, A.B., 1975
Law SchoolUniversity of California, Berkeley, J.D., 1983
Admitted1983, California

Thomas Nevins is a partner in the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Nevins specializes in complex business litigation, with an emphasis in antitrust, price discrimination, and unfair competition. Prior to joining Sheppard Mullin, Mr. Nevins was an associate and partner at Broad, Schulz, Larson & Wineberg, San Francisco (1983-1994).


Representative Litigation Cases

Reilly v. The Hearst Corporation, 107 F.Supp.2d 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (acquisition challenged under the Clayton Act and Sherman Act);

Pan Asia Venture Capital Corporation v. The Hearst Corporation, et al., 74 Cal.App.4th 424 (1999) (alleged pricing below cost under California Business and Professions Code 17043);

City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 46 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1995), and 872 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.), modified, 886 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 (1990) (alleged price fixing and conspiracy to monopolize);

Tominaga v. Shepherd, 682 F.Supp. 1489 (C.D. Cal. 1988) (alleged group boycott, refusal deal and tying);

N orthern California Booksellers Association v. The Hearst Corporation, United States District Court for Northern District of California (alleged secondary line price discrimination under Robinson-Patman Act 2(a));

Harris v. Duty Free Shoppers Limited Partnership, 940 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1991) (alleged secret rebates under Robinson-Patman Act 2(c));

Western Shoe Gallery, Inc. v. Duty Free Shoppers Ltd., 593 F.Supp. 348 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (alleged secret rebates under Robinson-Patman Act 2(c));

Tomizaki v. Duty Fee Shoppers Ltd., San Francisco Superior Court (alleged secret rebates under California Business & Professions Code 17045);

Frontier Enterprises, Inc. v. Amador Stage Lines, Inc., 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,827 (E.D. Cal. 1985) (alleged sham litigation and price squeeze under Sherman Act 01 and 2).


· Member, American Bar Association (Antitrust and Litigation sections)

· Member, State Bar of California

· Member, Bar Association of San Francisco


· California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Book, August 9, 2005

· California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Book, May 28, 2003

Antitrust Law Blog Articles

· "Disfavored Purchaser Loses Robinson-Patman Act and Sherman Act Section 1 Claims Against Favored Buyer," August 19, 2013

· "Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act Defeats Claim Against Holder Of Patent Incorporated Into Industry Standard," June 25, 2013

· "California Court of Appeal Allows Injunction Under Unfair Competition Law To Prevent Horizontal Competitor From Diverting Business Through Unlawful Means," May 13, 2013

· "Court Finds No Inference of Conspiracy Arising From Members of Standard Setting Organization Pursuing Self Interest In Refusing To Approve Plaintiff's Competing Technology," March 18, 2013

· "Interlocutory Appeal From Denial Of Twombly Motion to Dismiss in Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation", May 24, 2011

· "Ninth Circuit Finds That New Home Buyer Plaintiffs Fail To Satisfy Per Se Tying Element That Amount Of Commerce Not Be "Insubstantial" "Zero Foreclosure" Is Less Than 'De Minimus.'", September 3, 2009

· "Antitrust Division's Top Economist Addresses Congress On The Newspaper Industry", June 12, 2009

· "Is An Exclusive Dealing Contract An Unlawful Covenant Not To Compete?", April 13, 2009


· California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law - 5th Ed.


Documents by this lawyer on

Subscribe to this feed

Of Characterization and Common Sense: Court Holds That Erroneous Interpretation of Allegations of Complaint Doom Counterclaim to Bottom of Chicken Coop
Don T. Hibner,Thomas D. Nevins, July 7, 2014
In In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-Md.-02002-GP (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2014), the plaintiffs alleged that they purchased eggs from the defendant egg producing cooperatives, and that the plaintiffs had required that defendants provide only eggs that complied with a...

Major League Baseball’s Antitrust “Exemption” Is Immune From Judicial Overrule
Thomas D. Nevins, November 18, 2013
The City of San Jose, California, entered into an option contract to lease land to the Oakland A’s, a Major League Baseball (“MLB”) club, for the construction of a new stadium. The land was within the exclusive territory of another MLB club, the San Francisco Giants, who refused...

Disfavored Purchaser Loses Robinson-Patman Act and Sherman Act Section 1 Claims Against Favored Buyer
Thomas D. Nevins, August 22, 2013
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion on a rare legal issue: buyer liability for violations of the Robinson-Patman Act. Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust System, Inc., No. 10-36083 (9th Cir. July 19, 2013). The Gorlick court relied extensively on the...

View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#1,688 in weekly profile views out of 19,607 lawyers in San Francisco, California
#131,925 in weekly profile views out of 1,530,397 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Thomas D. Nevins

Seventeenth Floor, Four Embarcadero Center
San FranciscoCA 94111


Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now