Appellate Litigation

As counsel to several health care and business groups appearing as amici curiae, successfully handled significant products liability appeals, convincing the New Jersey Supreme Court that labels on the acne drug Accutane were adequate under New Jersey law, and that the state should adopt the Daubert factor-based approach for determining the admissibility of expert testimony. In the latter landmark case, which altered New Jersey law on expert testimony admissibility, the Supreme Court’s decision relied upon and cited McCarter’s argument. Also successfully briefed and argued in another appeal that New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations should apply in products cases involving a prescription medicine. 

Overstock.com—Major Appellate Victory Reversing a $7.3 Million Judgment

Secured an appellate victory on behalf of Overstock.com in the Delaware Supreme Court in a unique case involving Delaware escheat law and a qui tam action. The Court, sitting en banc, unanimously reversed a multi-million dollar false claim judgment entered against Overstock.com.

Mail-order retailer—Appellate victory

Affirming the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court’s complete dismissal of a $25 million lawsuit brought by an asset-based lender against our client, a mail-order retailer.

Global Insurance Broker—Third circuit appellate win

Represented a global insurance broker in a multi-million dollar lender-placed insurance class action in federal court. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the action on the grounds that the filed-rate doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, addressing an issue of first impression in that court, affirmed the trial court’s ruling by a unanimous published decision.

New Jersey Supreme Court—Amicus curiae

Represented an industry organization appearing as amicus curiae before the New Jersey Supreme Court in an appeal of a mortgage foreclosure action where the borrower argued that, under a provision of New Jersey's Uniform Commercial Code, the assignee of the mortgage could not foreclose because the original note had been lost prior to the assignment. Addressing an issue that had divided courts in other jurisdictions, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously adopted the position advanced in the amicus brief, holding that, notwithstanding the loss of the note, the assignee could bring the foreclosure action consistent with New Jersey statutes and common-law principles governing the assignment of mortgages.