Tenacious litigator. Daniel was a critical member of the litigation team representing my company in a major trade secrets case. Worked all night to successfully counter an unexpected and creative technical theory raised by the defense in the final hearing. Very pleased with the results.”     - John Bandy, General Counsel, Norit Americas

Headline Results

Supplier’s Breach of Warranty Leads to $90 Million Product Defect Recovery

The Case: Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Arizona Chemical Co. LLC, Duval County, Florida, Cir. Ct., 2014.
The Verdict:  $70,100,000.00.  Recovery After Appeal:  $90,000,000.00. 
The National Law Journal ranked this verdict as 28th Largest Verdict in the United States.

Misappropriated Trade Secrets Lead to $38 Million Arbitration Award + Ongoing Royalties

The Case: Norit Americas, Inc. v. ADA-ES, Inc., American Arbitration Association, 2011.
The Award:  $37,900,000.00 + Substantial Running Royalty.
The defendants were represented by Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, two of the nation’s most feared and respected defense firms, who spent $27.4 million in legal fees, only to lose the case.

Representative Experience

  • Counsel for a prominent blockchain / cryptocurrency media company regarding a variety of commercial matters and contracts.
  • Represented an international airline regarding lost profits claims stemming from electrical fire at the Hartsfield Jackson International Airport.
  • Counsel for a retail business on a variety of commercial matters, including commercial leasing, trademark matters, vendor contracts, confidentiality agreements, employment agreements, and more.
  • Counsel for a plastics manufacturer negotiating the acquisition of manufacturing facilities. Also represented the company in post-closing claims for fraud and breach of warranty related to seller’s misrepresentations concerning the legal status of its workforce.
  • Served as trial counsel for a manufacturer defending against a substantial products liability suit associated with a boating accident, in which the plaintiff’s expert testimony was excluded, the plaintiff was sanctioned for spoliation of evidence, and the plaintiff’s claims were resolved in the defendants’ favor at summary judgment.
  • Represented Mazda in a consumer economic-loss class action related to nationwide recall of Takata airbags in multi-district proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.
  • Represented Toyota in a consumer economic-loss class action related to recall of vehicles with electronic throttle control in multidistrict litigation before the Central District of California.
  • Represented a manufacturer of building materials defending against a lawsuit claiming theft of trade secrets and patent infringement, which was promptly settled on favorable terms early in the litigation.
  • Represented an individual plaintiff in a catastrophic personal injury lawsuit associated with a defective product, in which the matter was successfully resolved in an extraordinarily favorable confidential settlement for the client.
  • Represented a medical billing claims processor defending against a nationwide class action alleging a data privacy breach.
  • Defended a truck driver and carrier in a wrongful death personal injury claim, in which our client obtained summary judgment in its favor.
  • Represented a plastics manufacturer in a substantial theft of trade secrets case against a former employee and competitor in Dekalb County Superior Court, which resulted in a very favorable confidential settlement for the client.
  • Litigated a post-closing commercial real estate dispute that went to arbitration, obtaining an award from the arbitrator denying all of the claimant’s requests for relief and awarding our client over $200,000 in attorneys’ fees.
  • Represented an amicus party in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on a critical First Amendment case impacting the freedom of student press organizations across the country.
  • Litigated a dispute in the Northern District of Georgia between two insurance companies on an issue of first impression regarding contribution obligations for indemnity and the defense of an underlying insured, obtaining summary judgment in favor of the client that denied all of the plaintiff’s claims and granted the full amount of the client’s attorneys’ fees.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.