Successfully defended a streaming service in a class action matter brought under the Consumer Choice in Television Act in Louisiana trial and appellate courts. The initial case was dismissed outright, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. This result is expected to impact similar litigation in other jurisdictions.

Successfully drafted two interlocutory writs within a remarkable 72-hour timeframe in an Orleans Parish mesothelioma case at the Fourth Circuit. The first writ secured a remand to the trial court for a thorough evidentiary hearing, while the second, though partially granted, effectively stayed the ongoing trial, although ultimately denied as to substance.

Successfully obtained summary judgment in a mesothelioma case for a supplier in East Baton Rouge. The initial denial led to a writ at the state First Circuit, where two panel members were initially reluctant to grant relief, while a dissenting third member favored reversing the trial court. Subsequently, re-urging the motion before the state court led to the ultimate grant of summary judgment.

Successfully represented a multinational aircraft company in the appeal of a remand decision by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s remand order and adopted MG+M’s argument that established a new standard for the Ninth Circuit whereby the thirty-day removal clock is not triggered until “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper” makes the grounds for removal “unequivocally clear and certain.”

Successfully represented American Biltrite in a crucial legal victory in three New York appellate cases, obtaining summary judgment based on the lack of causation. Plaintiffs alleged lung cancer from Amtico vinyl asbestos floor tile exposure, but American Biltrite successfully argued the tile’s inability to contribute to the disease and challenged the lack of scientific foundation in plaintiffs’ claims. The appellate court reversed prior denials, stating that plaintiffs were not exposed to sufficient asbestos levels, and there was no demonstrated correlation between floor tile asbestos and lung cancer risk beyond the general environment.