T. Kevin Roosevelt, formerly an associate in the Orange County office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, joined Finlayson Toffer Roosevelt & Lilly LLP as a partner in 2010. Mr. Roosevelt specializes in complex business litigation, including general commercial, patent, trade secret, breach of contract, business tort, antitrust and securities litigation. With over a dozen years of experience representing corporate and individuals in California and federal courts throughout the United States, and throughout all phases of litigation, Mr. Roosevelt has successfully resolved numerous matters for his clients, including conducting several trials resulting in favorable jury verdicts, as well as obtaining the early resolution of matters via settlement and pre-trial motion practice.
EDUCATION
Mr. Roosevelt received a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and political science from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1995. He graduated in 1999 with a law degree from the University of Southern California Law School, where he served as Senior Editor of the Southern California Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif.
MEMBERSHIPS & AFFILIATIONS
Mr. Roosevelt is a member of the Orange County Bar Association, and he is admitted to practice in several federal district courts and circuits. While at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Mr. Roosevelt was presented with the firm’s Frank Wheat Memorial Award, named after a Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorney active in nonprofit work, for the work he did in defending tenants in a slumlord case in Orange County Superior Court.
TRIAL EXPERIENCE
-
Mr. Roosevelt first chaired a jury trial as a third year associate for Manning Riddell, LLC. At issue in the trial were claims of breach of contract and fraud with regard to a real estate transaction.
-
Mr. Roosevelt was part of a trial team on a misappropriation of trade secrets case for Callaway Golf Company.
-
Mr. Roosevelt second chaired a wrongful termination trial for United Parcel Service, Inc.
-
Mr. Roosevelt first chaired a jury trial for Unilever involving claims of breach of warranty.
-
Mr. Roosevelt went to trial on a patent case for The TriZetto Group, Inc.
-
Mr. Roosevelt second chaired an arbitration on a patent license dispute for Allergan, Inc.
-
Mr. Roosevelt first chaired a Section 220 trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking books and records of XO Communications, Inc. on behalf of a minority shareholder.
-
Mr. Roosevelt co-first chaired a jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court defending against claims for breach of contract and interference with contractual obligations and prosecuting a claim for conversion. The jury entered a verdict in favor of Mr. Roosevelt’s client on all claims.
T. Kevin Roosevelt
Practices Business Litigation
EDUCATION
University of Southern 1999
California School of Law Juris Doctor
University of California 1999
Los Angeles Juris Doctor
ADMISSIONS
California
U.S. District Court
Central District of California
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
U.S. District Court
Southern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
General Business Litigation
-
Quidel Corporation v. Packaging Plus Services, LLC et al. Represented Quidel as plaintiff in a case against its product packager for breach of contract based on packager’s closure of its business without proper notice, and also sued packager’s lender for its interference with the breach, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and alter ego. After prevailing on the lender’s challenges to jurisdiction and its demurrers to each of the causes of action alleged against it, the case settled on terms favorable to our client.
-
Ingram Micro v. BigStore.com. Successfully defended Ingram Micro Inc. in antitrust and B&P Section 17200 litigation asserted by Chapter 11 debtor, The BigStore.com, in Orange County Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Roosevelt was also successful in defeating claims brought against Ingram Micro in the Orange County Superior Court by two of The Bigstore.com’s founders seeking more than $30 million in damages, instead securing multi-million dollar judgments against those founders.
-
De La Cruz, et al. v. Athens Services, et al. Represented Athens Services in a nuisance action related to an Athena recycling facility in the City of Industry.
-
Johnny Rockets Group, Inc. v. Bloch. Represented Johnny Rockets in a dispute over a limited liability partnership agreement.
-
Western Digital Corp. v. Cirrus Logic, Inc. Represented Western Digital in a breach of contract case in Orange County Superior Court.
-
Callaway Golf Company v. Yash. Represented Callaway Golf Company in a breach of fiduciary duty action. The case was successfully arbitrated in San Diego.
-
Katz v. Avanir (formerly known as Lidak) Pharmaceuticals. Civil contempt case tried to successful guilty verdict in San Diego County Superior Court.
-
Garcia, et al. v. Kao, et al. Litigated a pro bono matter on behalf of multiple low-income tenants living in a slum in Santa Ana. Obtained significant victories on behalf of the tenants, including the appointment of a health and safety code receiver to take control of the property, class certification for the tenants, and a significant monetary settlement.
-
Solution Logistics, LLC, et al. v. ICAT Logistics, Inc., et al. Solution Logistics claimed ICAT had breached a contract that required it to refrain from contacting Solution Logistics’ clients and alleged that it had suffered over $1 million in damages as a result of such contact. ICAT claimed it had no such obligation, and alleged that Solution Logistics had converted almost $100,000 of ICAT’s revenues. After a two-week jury trial, in which Mr. Roosevelt served as co-first chair, the jury entered a verdict entirely in ICAT’s favor. The amount awarded to ICAT by the jury was exactly 100% of the damages ICAT sought. The jury also unanimously rejected Solution Logistics’ claims.
Real Estate Litigation
-
Lake Hills v. Richland Investments, et al. This action was a fraudulent transfer case based on a land development agreement in which our client, Richland Investments, was the defendant. Bifurcated judicial reference trials were held in 2010 and 2011. The case involved the interpretation of the terms of a Profit Participation Agreement between a land owner and a land developer, as well as complex analyses of financial transactions made between various entities. Following trial, the case settled on terms that were favorable for our client.
-
Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. TrendWest. Represented Lehman Brothers in a dispute over a development agreement in Indio, California. The case was litigated in Orange County Superior Court and eventually settled following mediation.
-
The Irvine Company v. Mossimo. Represented The Irvine Company in a dispute with Mossimo regarding Mossimo’s attempted early termination of a lease agreement. The case settled on terms favorable to The Irvine Company.
-
The Price R.E.I.T. v. TRU Properties. Represented the owner of a shopping center in a dispute with the anchor tenant regarding the scope of tax liabilities that were owed under the terms of the lease. The tenant argued that it was entitled to reimbursement for Mello-Roos taxes that it had paid. Our client prevailed on summary judgment at the trial court level and on appeal at the California Court of Appeal.
Intellectual Property
-
Allergan, Inc., et al. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., et al. Patent infringement and unfair competition litigation against several companies who are competing with Allergan’s FDA approved product by selling products for which FDA approval has not been received and which allegedly infringe Allergan’s patents. Following a Federal Circuit ruling establishing that Allergan does have standing to pursue its unfair competition claim against the defendants, the District Court entered summary judgment in Allergan’s favor against all defendants on that claim.
-
Barr Laboratories v. Allergan, Inc. Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation in which Allergan is a defendant. The cases were brought in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to enter the market for a patented glaucoma treatment.
-
Broadcom, Inc. v. Emulex, Inc. Patent infringement action against Emulex pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
-
BHGV, LLC v. Inamed, Inc. and Allergan, Inc. Dispute over technology license agreement, including the amount of royalties due and whether the agreement had been terminated. Our client, the defendant, asserted the agreement had been terminated, while plaintiff asserted $30 million in royalties were due and payable. After a one-week arbitration, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor, finding the client did have the right to terminate the agreement.
-
McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. TriZetto, Inc. Patent infringement action in which our client was the accused infringer. Summary judgment of noninfringement was obtained for our client on 15 of the 17 asserted claims. A summary judgment motion based on invalidity was then filed as to the two remaining claims, at which point the plaintiff agreed to settle and grant our client a license.
-
MacLeod v. Hewlett-Packard Company. Patent infringement action in which the client was the alleged infringer. Action was settled favorably before trial.
-
Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Group Americas, Inc., dba Maxfli. Trade secret misappropriation and false advertising case, successfully tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in the client’s favor.
Antitrust
-
In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation. Multidistrict class action and multiple “opt-out” direct purchaser actions involving alleged price-fixing and cartel behavior. Damages against the defendants sought in an amount in excess of $1 billion. Case was successfully mediated and settled.
Securities and Merger & Acquisition Litigation
-
The TriZetto Group, Inc. Defended TriZetto and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger. Case settled favorably and the transaction closed.
-
Ashworth, Inc. Defended Ashworth and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger. Case settled favorably shortly after the lawsuit was filed and the transaction closed.
-
Emulex Corporation. Defended Emulex and the members of its Board of Directors in hostile takeover litigation brought by Broadcom and shareholder plaintiffs. The lawsuits alleged that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties by enacting certain defensive measures. Broadcom abandoned its takeover offer and dismissed its lawsuit shortly before trial.
-
I-Flow Corporation. Defended I-Flow and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger. Case settled favorably and the transaction closed.
-
Diedrich Coffee, Inc. Defended Diedrich and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger. Defeated motion for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery brought by the plaintiff.
-
Emulex Corporation. Defended Emulex and the members of its Board of Directors in derivative litigation alleging that the Company made false disclosures to inflate stock price. The litigation was stayed at the defendants’ request.
-
Amerco Inc. Defended Amerco, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors in derivative litigation alleging self dealing by parent of U-Haul in connection with sale of stock to insiders to prevent change of control. Prevailed on a motion to dismiss.