Bryan Merryman “does an excellent job of cutting to the heart of lawsuits,” according to sources. He has particularly notable experience in defending consumer class actions.
Chambers USA, 2014
Bryan Merryman “does an excellent job of cutting to the heart of lawsuits,” according to sources. He has particularly notable experience in defending consumer class actions.
Chambers USA, 2014
Executive Partner of the Firm's Los Angeles office, Bryan has a national and international practice handling complex business disputes, with a particular focus on class actions.
Clients benefit from his skill and experience handling large, nationwide class actions, including those involving multiple actions, as well as cases involving multiple jurisdictions. He has tried jury and non-jury cases, has handled arbitrations, and has appeared before various state and local administrative agencies.
Bryan's successful track record spans areas including antitrust, consumer and securities class actions, disputes involving contracts, unfair competition and business torts. His breadth of knowledge and strategic skill enables him to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients.
Experience
Representation of a global pet food manufacturer in a putative consumer class action alleging the company failed to disclose on its product labeling the likelihood that forced labor may be used somewhere in its upstream supply chain. In December 2015, the court dismissed the case with prejudice on our client's first motion—the first motion to dismiss decided in a string of related class actions filed against the nation's leading pet food and chocolate manufacturers. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc., 2015 WL 9309553 (C.D. Cal.).
Representation of a mobile messaging app provider in a putative class action filed on behalf of the app's users. Plaintiff alleged that our client used an autodialer to send the putative class unsolicited spam text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court bifurcated discovery to first hear our motion for summary judgment before deciding class certification. The court granted our motion, finding that the plaintiff lacked evidence to establish our client's technology could perform the functionalities of an autodialer. The opinion is frequently cited. Glauser v. GroupMe, Inc., 2015 WL 475111 (N.D. Cal.).
Representation of a prominent Los Angeles professional sports team in a putative class action alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs claimed our client entered into a US$3 billion programming agreement with a cable provider and passed the acquisition cost on to subscribers who could not opt out of the programming due to the bundling of channels. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of our client. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal and the California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari.
Bryan represented a national cable service provider in defense of a putative nationwide class action filed on behalf of former customers involving its data retention and privacy policies, and alleging that the company violated the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act, two related California privacy statues and an implied contract. The court granted our motion to dismiss, and entered judgment in favor of our client.
Bryan represented a national fitness club in defense of a putative class action filed on behalf of all current and former members, alleging that its form membership agreement required members to waive certain rights in violation of several New Jersey consumer protection statues. The court granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of our client. 'Sauro v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC, 2013 WL 978807 (D.N.J.).'
Bryan represented a consumer products company in multi-district litigation, in defense of an action filed on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of bottles and cups, alleging claims under the consumer protection statutes of numerous states, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment based on the company's use of polycarbonate plastic in certain products. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a multi-state class, and later denied their motion to certify a Missouri class. 'In re Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1967, 276 F.R.D. 336 (July 5, 2011); In re BPA Litigation; 2011 WL 6740338 (Dec. 22, 2011).'
Bryan helped an Italian film production and distribution company in arbitration against a US motion picture production company before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, involving certain foreign distribution rights for The Rum Diary. In July 2011, after a hearing on the merits, the arbitrator found in favor of our client, and subsequently awarded fees and costs to our client as the prevailing party.
Bryan represented one of Nevada's largest real estate developers in arbitration against five of the country's largest home builders, involving a large residential and commercial development outside of Las Vegas. In 2008, the five home builders stopped work on the project due to the real estate downturn. We commenced an arbitration seeking an order that the project go forward or that our client be compensated for its losses due to the improper work stoppage. In July 2010, after a two-week hearing, the arbitral tribunal awarded our client damages of US$36,815,834. The US District Court, District of Nevada, confirmed the award and entered judgment in favor of our client in November 2010. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in 2012.
Representation of an electric power generator and marketer in the defense of over twenty class actions, alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws. The courts dismissed every action in which the Firm's client filed a motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit affirmed all of the judgments. 'People of the State of California, ex rel; Bill Lockyer v. Mirant Corporation, et al., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004); Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., et al., 384 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2004); T & E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading and Mktg., LLC, No. 03-56793, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3315 (9th Cir. 2005); California, ex rel; Bill Lockyer v. Transcanada Power, L.P., 2004 WL 2315717 (9th Cir. 2004).'
Bryan represented an oil refiner in defense of a putative class action filed on behalf of 25,000 Shell and Texaco dealers, alleging a Sherman Act claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Firm's client, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Dagher v. Saudi Refining, Inc., et al., 369 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2004). In 2007, the same putative class, except for those dealers who were plaintiffs in Dagher, filed another Sherman Act case under a different theory. The district court granted our client's motion to dismiss, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 'Madani v. Saudi Refining, Inc., et al., 357 Fed. Appx. 158, 2009 WL 4877701 (C.A.9 (Cal.)).'
Litigation: General Commercial – California