|
Experience
Political Law Litigation
Trump v. Biden
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Represented then President-elect Biden and then Vice President-elect Harris in President Trump’s attempt to reverse the outcome of the Wisconsin presidential election by invalidating the ballots of more than 220,000 voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties. In proceedings before the Dane and Milwaukee Election Commissions, the Circuit Court for Milwaukee, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, secured victories that affirmed the assignment of Wisconsin’s electoral college votes Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Cegavske and Democratic National Committee
Supreme Court of Nevada
Represented the Democratic National Committee and the Nevada State Democratic Party in response to the Trump Campaign’s request on the eve of the 2020 presidential election for Clark County, Nevada, to cease validating and counting absentee ballots. Following an evidentiary hearing before the District Court for Carson City and briefing before the Supreme Court of Nevada, obtained rulings that permitted the validation and counting of ballots to continue, helping to secure the assignment of Nevada’s electoral college votes to Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.
Constantino v. City of Detroit
Michigan Supreme Court
Represented the Michigan Democratic Party in response to a request from individual voters to enjoin the Wayne County Board of Canvassers from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election based upon allegations of voting fraud. Following an evidentiary hearing before the Wayne County Circuit Court, obtained rulings from the Circuit Court and the Michigan Supreme Court denying the request for preliminary injunctive relief and permitting certification to proceed.
Democratic National Committee v. Bostelmann and Wisconsin Legislature
U.S. Supreme Court
Represented the Democratic National Committee in evidentiary and appellate proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the right to vote in Wisconsin’s 2020 primary elections in light of voting burdens created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Achieved a partial victory that resulted in approximately 80,000 ballots being counted that would have been rejected under pre-pandemic voting laws.
New Hampshire Democratic Party v. Gardner
New Hampshire Supreme Court
Representing the New Hampshire League of Women Voters in challenge to New Hampshire’s voter registration law that imposes criminal penalties on voters who register to vote and do not later provide documents proving their domicile. Following multi-week trials before the Hillsborough County Superior Court, obtained orders enjoining the law for elections in 2019 and 2020. The case is pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Romo v. Detzner
Florida Supreme Court
Represented voters in a voter redistricting case in Florida state court, challenging the lawfulness of Florida's voting plan for the U.S. House of Representatives under the Florida Constitution. Case highlights include obtaining a landmark ruling authorizing depositions and discovery from Florida state lawmakers and prevailing after a three-week trial on the merits, resulting in a judgment that the state’s plan was infected with partisan political intent in violation of the Florida Constitution. Argued before the Florida Supreme Court, which ultimately imposed a revamped voting plan under which the 2016, 2018, and 2020 Florida congressional elections were held.
State of Texas v. United States
Represented minority voters from Texas, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who opposed the State of Texas's request for preclearance of its voting plan for the U.S. House of Representatives. The proceeding arose under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was tried in January 2012 before a three-judge panel, which unanimously found that the state had intentionally discriminated against minority voters while drawing new political boundaries.
Regulatory Law Litigation
Proceedings Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Represented US WEST, Inc., Qwest Communications, and CenturyLink, Inc. since 1996 in dozens of arbitrations, rate-making proceedings, and civil proceedings involving contractual claims and issues arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These proceedings were before state public utilities commissions, private arbitrators, and federal courts.
Qwest Corporation v. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Represented Qwest in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving whether the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had authority to regulate rates charged by Qwest to competitive telecommunications providers for network components the providers lease from Qwest. The Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court, ruling that the Minnesota Commission is preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from relying on state law to regulate Qwest's rates.
CenturyLink v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Prosecuted claims by CenturyLink in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington that challenged the lawfulness of conditions that the Washington commission imposed on the merger of CenturyLink and Qwest Communications. The claims allege violations of the Supremacy Clause and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. After CenturyLink filed a motion for summary judgment, the case was settled on terms favorable to the company.
Qwest Corporation v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Represented Qwest Corporation in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit involving interpretation of a rule from the Federal Communications Commission relating to the rates Qwest is permitted to charge for leasing piece-parts of its telecommunication network to competing companies. In a ruling with industry-wide implications, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Colorado commission's interpretation of the rule in favor of Qwest's interpretation.
Qwest Corporation v. Covad Communications Company and Arizona Corporation Commission
Represented Qwest against Covad Communications Company in separate arbitration proceedings before 14 different public utility commissions. A central issue in these proceedings was whether Qwest was required to lease components of its telecommunications network at cost-based rates or whether it was permitted to charge market-based rates. All but one commission ruled for Qwest, rejecting Covad's request for cost-based rates. John represented Qwest in its appeal of the single adverse arbitration decision, issued by the Arizona Public Utilities Commission. In a decision that had national implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Arizona Commission.
Level 3 Communications v. Qwest Corporation
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Represented Qwest Corporation in an appeal brought by Level 3 Communications in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that sought to reinstate a claim for millions of dollars in reciprocal compensation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. After briefing and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Level 3's appeal in an unpublished decision.
MCImetro Access Transmission Services v. Qwest Corporation
Defended Qwest successfully in an arbitration claim that sought $50 million under a disputed contract.
Ace Telephone Association v. Qwest Corporation and Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Represented Qwest in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving a rate that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission set for an element of Qwest's telecommunications network known as switching. A coalition of competitive local exchange carriers had prevailed in district court on their claim that the Minnesota commission had improperly set at zero the rate for the usage-based component of switching. In a decision that had significant financial implications for the Minnesota local exchange market, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court, upholding Qwest's position that the rate was proper. See Ace Telephone Association v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 432 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2005)
Commercial Litigation
AT&T v. CenturyLink
Defended CenturyLink in a multimillion dollar claim for breach of contract before the American Arbitration Association in Denver. The case was settled on terms favorable to CenturyLink.
Estate of Robert North v. Precision Airmotive
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Represented a manufacturer of aircraft fuel systems in a wrongful death action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. After the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's primary damages claim, the case settled on terms favorable to the manufacturer.
Jill Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Represented the manufacturer of aircraft fuel systems in a wrongful death action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. After the trial court dismissed several of the plaintiff's claims based on federal preemption, the case settled on terms favorable to the manufacturer.
Star Technologies v. General Electric Medical Systems
Prosecuted and tried a $10 million arbitration claim successfully on behalf of Star Technologies, a computer company in Northern Virginia. The case involved breach of a requirements contract relating to a central component of medical computerized tomography (CT) scanners.
Defense of Legal Malpractice Claim
Defended and tried a case involving a multimillion-dollar legal malpractice claim against a national law firm. The case resulted in a finding of no malpractice.
U.S. Department of justice Litigation
United States v. City of Brookings, South Dakota
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota
Assumed responsibility as a trial attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for a lawsuit brought against Brookings, South Dakota, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which the DOJ alleged that Brookings had unlawfully discriminated against women in hiring police officers. Brookings settled during trial after the DOJ presented its evidence, agreeing under the settlement to hire female police officers and to compensate female applicants who had been denied employment.
United States v. Village of Elmwood Park, IL
Represented the United States in a series of lawsuits against approximately 25 cities and towns in the suburbs of Chicago and Detroit that involved allegations of unlawful discrimination against African-Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuits alleged that the municipalities unlawfully discriminated against African-Americans by limiting eligibility for public employment to those who resided in the municipalities. Following a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that granted summary judgment for the United States, negotiated consent decrees with the cities and towns that eliminated the residency requirements and resulted in affirmative recruiting and hiring measures.
