Bryan Merryman

Partner, Los Angeles

Biography

Bryan Merryman is well regarded for his handling of consumer class action defense. He acts for companies in a wide range of industries including food and beverage. Peers regard him to be “a quality lawyer,” while clients comment that he is “a pleasure to work with.”
Chambers USA, 2019

Overview

A partner in 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.

Bars and Courts
California State Bar
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
US District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California
US District Court for the District of Colorado
Education
JD
University of Pennsylvania Law School
BA
Kenyon College
Languages
English
Spanish

Experience

Bottled water company

Representation of a global bottled water company in the defense of a putative class action alleging violation of consumer protection laws arising out of the alleged presence of microplastics in bottled water products. The court granted our motion to dismiss based on federal preemption. Baker v. Nestlé S.A., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14122 (C.D. Cal.).

Global food manufacturer

Representation of a global food manufacturer in the defense of two putative class actions filed in California and Massachusetts alleging violations of consumer protection laws arising out of the alleged use of forced and/or child labor to source cocoa for certain chocolate products. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all consumers who purchased certain chocolate products. The district courts granted our motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed both cases. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The case in the First Circuit remains on appeal. McCoy v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 173 F. Supp.3d 854 (N.D. Cal. 2016), 730 Fed. Appx. 462 (9th Cir. 2018); Tomasella v. Nestlé USA, 364 F. Supp.3d 26 (D. Mass. 2019).

Pet food manufacturer

Representation of global pet food manufacturer in the defense of a putative class action alleging violation of the Sherman Act and state consumer protection laws arising out of the sale of prescription pet food. The court granted our motion to dismiss. Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106393 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff appealed and the appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Pet food manufacturer

Representation of a global pet food manufacturer in a putative class action alleging the company failed to disclose on its product label 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 appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Barber v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 954 (C.D. Cal. 2015), 730 Fed. Appx. 464 (9th Cir. 2018).

Mobile messaging app

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. Glauser v. GroupMe, Inc., 2015 WL 475111 (N.D. Cal.).

Los Angeles professional sports team

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.

National cable service provider

Representation of a national cable service provider in defense of two putative nationwide class actions filed on behalf of former customers involving its data retention and privacy policies and alleging the company violated the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act and related stateprivacy statutes. The courts granted our motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of our client. Burton v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2013 WL 3337784 (C.D. Cal.); Gubala v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 846 F. 3d 909 (7th Cir. 2017).

National fitness club

Representation of a national fitness club in defense of a putative class action filed on behalf of all current and former members alleging its form membership agreement required members to waive certain rights in violation of several New Jersey consumer protection statutes. 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.).

Consumer products company

Representation of 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 plaintiffs' motion to certify a multi-state class and later denied plaintiffs' 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).

Italian film production and distribution company

Representation of an Italian film production and distribution company in an 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.

Major real estate developer

Representation of one of Nevada's largest real estate developers in an 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.

Back office services provider

Representation of a back office services provider to emergency physician groups in defense of an action on behalf of a putative class of patients who alleged claims under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and consumer protection statutes on the basis that they were overcharged and received communications in violation of the Act. The court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The California court of appeal affirmed. The trial court then granted summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of our client. 

Awards and Recognition

Leading Lawyer, Chambers USA, Litigation: General Commercial – California, 2011-2019

Local Litigation Star, Benchmark Litigation, Antitrust and Commercial Litigation, 2013-2020

Recognized by Best Lawyers for Commercial Litigation and Litigation - Securities, 2014-2020