Francis A. Citera

Experience: Products Liability: Representing Albertsons Companies Inc. in the National Prescription Opiate litigation pending in the Northern District of Ohio and in various state court actions pending throughout the United States. In connection with his representation of Albertsons in the State of Alaska, Citera successfully argued that the State's claims of Public Nuisance are not supported by Alaska law - raising questions that the Court said 'appear to be matters of first impression in Alaska.' In a subsequent order awarding Albertsons fees for its work, the Court recognized Citera's 'impressive work in addressing 'complex issues still being litigated across the country.'; Serve as national counsel for two manufacturers in a series of actions that have been filed against manufacturers, suppliers, vendors and lessors of wireless handheld telephones, those who provide wireless services for such devices, and two trade associations. Plaintiffs allege that radiofrequency energy emitted by wireless telephones can cause cancer.; Represented ADM in a wrongful death action. Citera and his team won a hard-fought motion to transfer venue based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, which affirmed the trial court's order transferring venue.; Counseling a major retailer on asbestos and talc issues.; Represented UL LLC in an action where the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the action.; Represented Sears, Roebuck and Co. both before the Supreme Court of Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit. In Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., the Fifth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of Mississippi's $1 million statutory cap on noneconomic damages.; Represented Sears, Roebuck and Co. in an argument before the Supreme Court of Illinois. In Townsend v. Sears Roebuck and Co., plaintiffs sought to apply Illinois law to the issues of liability and damages in an action involving an allegedly defectively-designed riding lawn tractor. The Court reviewed the choice-of-law analysis and concluded that the law of Michigan governed plaintiff's claims.; Class Actions: Secured dismissal with prejudice in In re: Prime Energy Consumer Litigation, a consolidated consumer class action targeting Prime Hydration's caffeine labeling. Plaintiffs alleged 15-25 mg more caffeine than stated, but the court found no material misrepresentation and deemed their testing methods unreliable and unsupported.; Represented Albertsons Companies Inc. in a putative class action brought by an acute care hospital on behalf of 'all acute care hospitals in the U.S.' treating opioid use disorder (OUD) patients. Plaintiff alleged dozens of opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies participated in a decades-long criminal enterprise to increase opioid sales, resulting in financial harm to hospitals due to an inadequate compensation for patient care. Plaintiff asserted violations of the civil RICO statute under 1962(c) and that Defendants conspired to violate RICO under 1962(d). In dismissing Plaintiff's complaint the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to plausibly establish causation, injury, or predicate acts required for RICO liability.; Represented Albertsons and Safeway in a putative class action alleging the grocers filled prescriptions with generic drugs that are not therapeutically equivalent to the brand prescription Concerta. The judge dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and entered judgment for the defendants, noting the plaintiff did not prove that the generic drug failed to act in the same matter as Concerta or that it was not a safe and effective treatment for ADHD.; Represented Albertsons Companies, Inc. and Supervalu Inc. in a putative class action alleging that the defendants 'systematically overcharged diabetic patients with excessive out-of-pocket fees for insulin pump supplies that would have otherwise been considered covered services by Medicare and subject to the Medicare reimbursement rates.' Plaintiff alleged that defendants submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ('CMS') reimbursement claims for insulin pump supplies under Medicare Part D, rather than Medicare Part B. The Court found that plaintiff's claims are intertwined with a claim under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq. As a result, the Court held that plaintiff could not pursue judicial relief because he had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.; Represented Energizer Brands, LLC, in a putative class action alleging that Energizer's AA MAX batteries were being marketed and sold to the public under false pretenses. Plaintiff alleged that Energizer made the false and misleading claim that its AA MAX batteries are 'Up to 50% longer lasting than basic alkaline in demanding devices.' Plaintiff brought claims for consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. The District Court dismissed the action concluding that the key phrase in the advertising at issue (which said 'up to 50% longer lasting than basic alkaline in demanding devices') was 'up to,' which is 'an upper bound,' not a 'guarantee.' Applying Second Circuit precedent, this phrase would cause a reasonable consumer to expect that 'an individual battery could last less than the advertised upper bound.'; Represented Combined Insurance Company in a putative class action asserting various claims in connection with an alleged 'data breach' with respect to certain personally identifiable information. Plaintiff's class certification motion was denied and the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the order denying class certification. In November 2017, the District Court granted the company's motion for summary judgment.; Secured a dismissal for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in a putative class action alleging violations of equal protection and CTA fare policies as well as unjust enrichment.The Court found that plaintiff did not have standing to bring claims in her own name when the alleged violations related to her children. Most notably, the court said that fare policies are not laws for the purpose of equal protection, and there was no evidence of unequal treatment. The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal.; Represented Energizer Holdings, Inc. in a putative class action asserting breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and other claims arising under California's CLRA, UCL, and FAL. Plaintiffs alleged defendants' advertisements omitted essential facts about their liquid-based vehicle air freshener products. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's third amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently plead facts showing Defendants' knowledge of the defect in Plaintiff's air freshener when it was purchased.; Represented Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ('Samsung') in a putative consumer class action alleging that the rear camera lens covers on various models of Samsung smartphones spontaneously shatter without external impact or force. GT won a partial motion to dismiss in Kessler v. Samsung, pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which asserted breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims.; Represented Champion Petfoods USA in a series of putative class actions alleging its pet food brands were tainted with mercury, lead and arsenic.; Represented Sears, Roebuck and Co. in a series of putative class actions pending in state and federal courts alleging that Sears deceptively marketed and labeled its proprietary line of Craftsman tools as 'Made in USA' when, in fact, some of these tools contained significant foreign components.; In Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., plaintiffs alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law and sought to certify a class consisting of: 'All persons who purchased, in the state of California any Craftsman branded tool or product where any unit or part thereof was entirely or substantially made, manufactured or produced outside of the United States.' The Los Angeles Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of the State of California.; In In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Tools Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, the court denied plaintiff's motion to certify a class of Florida consumers for claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's unjust enrichment common law for the fourth time. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeals.; In Baumann v. Sears Roebuck and Company, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the dismissal of two putative class actions seeking compensatory and injunctive relief for the plaintiffs' purchase of various Craftsman brand tools.; Represented Sears Roebuck and Co. in three consolidated class actions alleging that Sears' transmittals of the plaintiffs' names, addresses, telephone numbers, and encrypted credit card information violated their privacy rights and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The trial court granted Sears' motion for summary judgment on all the class's claims. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for Sears, concluding among other things that Plaintiffs could not prove the requisite 'actual damage' required under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.; Environmental: Currently representing an international aerospace company in multiple high-profile toxic-tort actions including a putative class action in which Plaintiffs allege that emissions from a manufacturing facility contaminated nearby properties and injured persons who lived or worked nearby. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring and monetary damages. Following Daubert motions and expert depositions, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the class action with prejudice. GT continues to represent the client in the remaining mass tort and individual wrongful death actions.; Represented a global chemicals distributor in two actions that were pending in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs, two water utilities whose water supplies derive from municipal wells, alleged that their drinking water supplies were contaminated with hexavalent chromium manufactured and distributed by multiple suppliers, including our client. Plaintiffs brought claims for nuisance, trespass and utility tampering. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims concluding, for example, that plaintiffs' complaints were not sufficient to establish a nuisance.; Served as counsel for an industrial client in two trials arising from the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Superfund site: United States v. P.H. Glatfelter Co. et al., represented defendant on claims of the government for a mandatory injunction to implement the remedy for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Superfund site and for recovery of costs and natural resource damages. The Seventh Circuit held that the permanent injunction entered by the district court was improper and must be vacated. This action makes clear that CERCLA cannot be used by the EPA to evade legal requirements for permanent injunctive relief.; NCR Corp. V. Geo. A. Whiting Paper Co., represented defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in Superfund allocation case for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Superfund site tried February 2012.; Represented an international aerospace company in an action brought by 45 plaintiffs, who alleged property damage and personal injuries because of their exposure to BTEX contamination in both soil and groundwater in Wedron, Illinois. The trial court concluded that plaintiffs' expert's opinions were based solely on his assumption that groundwater conditions changed over time (and therefore groundwater flow changed over time). The court found that this was insufficient grounds on which to base an expert opinion and granted our motion to exclude the expert's testimony. Without the benefit of expert testimony to support plaintiffs' argument that our client was a cause of the contamination in Wedron, Plaintiffs could not sustain their burden of proof on causation. As a result, the trial court granted summary judgment for our client.; Teaching Experience: Adjunct Professor, Toxic Torts, University of Miami School of Law; Case Study Evaluation Panel Member, Consumer Product Safety Professional Certification Program, Emerson Leadership Institute, Saint Louis University Richard A. Chaifetz School of Business