Firm News for our Business Litigation Attorneys

In a case involving important preemption principles, Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury LLC represented the nationwide trade association of cargo air carriers as an amici curiae in the United States Supreme Court. The firm filed briefs on behalf of the association in support of a passenger airline, which argued that a customer’s claims based on revocation of his frequent flyer status were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. The Supreme Court ruled for the airline, firmly reiterating a prior preemption decision relied on by air and motor carriers. Its decision hinged on an argument that was made for the first time in the brief filed by Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury. The firm has helped develop a favorable legal landscape for its business clients at the highest levels of the profession.

In an intellectual property case, Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury LLC was retained to represent a manufacturer accused of misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among other business torts. The firm was retained for the liability and damages phase after an adverse, first-phase ruling regarding the existence of a trade secret. Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury obtained partial summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, as well as exclusion of two of the plaintiff’s damages experts, leading to resolution of the case out of court.

Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury LLC filed amicus curiae briefs with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a nationwide association of air carriers to vindicate an issue of great significance to both motor and air carriers—federal preemption of state laws relating to carriers’ prices, routes, and services. The firm filed briefs at both the certiorari and merits stages to support trucking companies that challenged various requirements imposed by the Port of Los Angeles, California on federal preemption grounds. The city argued that the requirements were saved from preemption because it was acting in its capacity as a market participant, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument and agreed with positions advocated by Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury.