Leonard Feldman joined the firm in 1992 and has a diverse litigation practice, which includes an emphasis on appellate practice and environmental and commercial litigation.

Experience

Mr. Feldman’s trial practice involves all aspects of commercial litigation, including environmental law, antitrust (litigation and counseling), intellectual property, construction law, securities and civil rights. Mr. Feldman’s appellate practice encompasses all phases of both civil and criminal appeals, including emergency motions, expedited appeals, case management, drafting and oral argument. Mr. Feldman is currently serving as a district coordinator for the Ninth Circuit pro bono program. Mr. Feldman also is a lecturer and teaches a course regarding appellate practice at the University of Washington School of Law.

Representative Engagements

Appellate Experience

• Represented Microsoft in defending claims under federal antitrust laws, California state unfair competition laws and copyright law, alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, tying, unfair competition and copyright infringement. The Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Microsoft in two separate appeals: one regarding the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling and the other regarding the court’s collateral estoppel ruling. Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; D. Md.).
• Represented various director defendants in a lawsuit filed by sellers of stock of a closely held corporation alleging misrepresentations under the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA). The trial court declined to award damages and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that rescission (rather than damages) was the proper remedy under the WSSA. Helenius v. Chelius et al. (King County Superior Court; Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I).
• Represented Western States Petroleum Association challenging the EPA’s decision to reject a portion of Washington’s operating permit plan that allows small emission units to be exempted from Title V permit applications and permit compliance requirements in Washington. The Ninth Circuit reversed the EPA’s decision and directed EPA to grant “full approval” to Washington’s proposed Title V program. Western States Petroleum Association et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit).
• Appointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to represent on a pro bono basis Sean Duffy, a deaf inmate alleging handicap discrimination and denial of due process rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants. The case settled on favorable terms after the District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Duffy. Sean G. Duffy v. Chase Riveland et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; W.D. Wash.).

Class Action Experience

• Represented American Financial Solutions and North Seattle Community College Foundation in a purported nationwide class action against several major participants in the credit counseling industry. The district court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, concluding that (a) plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate their claims, (b) the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable, and (c) even if the action had not been dismissed in favor of arbitration, the plaintiffs could not in any event pursue a class action because their respective agreements also contained an enforceable “no-class-action” provision. Jones et al. v. Genus Credit Management Corporation et al. (D. Md.).
• Represented State Farm Insurance Companies in a purported nationwide class action by consumers who supposedly were not compensated under their Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) coverage for the diminution of value associated with the stigma of their cars having been in accidents. After two years of litigation, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate her claims and remanded for entry an order compelling arbitration. In doing so, the court not only rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the trial court must resolve class certification before sending the case to arbitration, it also ruled that the dispute was a factual one over the existence of damage which was not suitable for certification – effectively denying class certification before the plaintiff even filed her motion. Heaphy v. State Farm Insurance Company (Pierce County Superior Court; Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II).
• Represented Goldendale Aluminum Company in a purported class action alleging that the company’s officers and directors breached their duties as fiduciaries and co-fiduciaries within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by wrongfully diverting company assets that would otherwise have been paid to an ERISA plan for subsequent distribution to employees. After receiving the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law and engaging in limited discovery, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the complaint voluntarily. Johnston v. Goldendale Aluminum Company (E.D. Wash.).
• Represented Hertz Corporation in a consumer class action arising out of charges paid by Hertz customers when renting automobiles at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Successfully moved to dismiss all claims against Hertz, which was then dismissed from the action. Robinson v. Hertz Corporation (King County Superior Court).

Trial Experience

• Represented Bonneville Power Administration, a federal power marketing agency, in a breach of contract dispute with Tenaska, the developer of a 248 megawatt power generating facility. The matter was arbitrated before an AAA panel in Denver, with the hearing lasting over a year. The matter included resolution of significant claims by the contractor (Kiewit/Black & Veatch) and the equipment supplier (General Electric) and extensive technical testimony about problems related to the facility’s turbine. Tenaska’s claim of $1,055,000,000 is one of the largest ever brought before the AAA. The arbitrators returned an award of less than one-fourth of the amount claimed. Tenaska v. Bonneville Power Administration (American Arbitration Association).
• Represented Skidmore Owings & Merrill, one of the world’s largest architectural and engineering firms, against architectural and engineering malpractice claims brought by the owner (Intrawest) and several contractors related to the construction of the Newmark Building, a high-rise structure in Seattle. The lawsuit led to a thirteen-week jury trial and an appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals. Intrawest and its contractors were ultimately awarded $1.8 million, approximately one-fourth of the amounts they had claimed. Skidmore Owings & Merrill v. Intrawest Corp. (King County Superior Court; Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I).
• Represented The Disposal Group (TDG) in a lawsuit against the City of Vancouver, claiming that TDG was entitled to compensation when the City terminated the hauler’s right to collect garbage in a portion of the City. The bankruptcy court, after finding that the right to collect garbage was a constitutionally-protected property right, held a two-week bench trial and awarded TDG damages (lost profits for ten years) of $3 million. The Disposal Group v. City of Vancouver (W.D. Wash.).

Publications

• “Appealing Opportunities Abound: Making a Difference One Case at a Time,”  King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin   02.2008
• Co-Author, “The Clerks’ Rules of Appellate Procedure,”  27 Appellate Practice Journal 20 (Winter 2008).  01.2008
• “How to Write, Edit, and Review Persuasive Briefs: Seven Guidelines from One Judge and Two Lawyers,”  31 Seattle Univ. L. Rev. 417, co-authored with Judge Stephen J. Dwyer and Ryan P. McBride.  Spring 2008  2008
• “A Guide to Appellate Motions on the Merits,”  King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin – co-authored with Appellate Commissioner James Verellen and Ryan P. McBride.  12.2007
• Mootness in the Class Action Context: Court-Created Exceptions to the ‘Case or Controversy’ Requirement of Article III  The Review of Litigation, Volume 26, Number 1. Co-authored with Malaika M. Eaton, Leonard J. Feldman, Daniel A. Zariski, and Darin M. Sands.  Winter.2007
• "Avoiding Liability For Securities Fraud: The Legal Significance Of Integration (And Non-Reliance) Clauses Under State And Federal Law," co-authored with Charles Ha.   

  Washington State Bar News

    05.2006
• Limitation of Suit: A Call For Equitable Tolling  Insurance Law Section  Winter.2006
• "Litigating in the New Class Action World: An Update on the Evolving Case Law Under the Class Action Fairness Act"  Analysis & Perspective Vol. 06, Number 18,  9.25.2005
• The Equitable Tolling Doctrine in First Party Insurance Coverage Matters: Analysis, Benefits and an Illustrative Case Study  Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal  Fall.2005
• "The 9th Circuit Pro Bono Program: Public Service and Personal Satisfaction"  Washington State Bar News  12.1.2003
• "Primer on Pricing Practices and the Antitrust Laws," co-authored with Meryl Mackin.  Antitrust Litigator, Volume 22, Number 3  09.1994
• Independent Ink At The Crossroads Of Antitrust And Intellectual Property Law – The Court’s Holding Regarding Market Power In Cases Involving Patents And Implications In Cases Involving Copyrights  co-authored with Rima J. Alaily and Chad D. Farrell, Seattle Univ. Law Review Winter 2007.  mm.dd.yyyy

Speaking Engagements

• “Brief Writing And Oral Argument,” KCBA Appellate Practice Institute/KCBA Appellate Law Section, CLE Presentation, Seattle, Washington, October 2007.
•  “Reducing Antitrust Risks in Pricing Decisions,” Washington Corporate Counsel Association, May 2007.
•  “Effective Appellate Advocacy in Federal Court,” CLE Presentation, Seattle, Washington, September 1999.
•  “Third Annual Ninth Circuit Appellate Practice Institute,” CLE Presentation, Seattle, Washington, June 1996.
• “Reducing Antitrust Risks in Product Distribution,” CLE Presentation, Seattle, Washington, June 1994.