Jeff LeVee’s practice focuses on complex business and class action litigation, antitrust litigation, health care litigation, and antitrust counseling. He has successfully litigated matters in state and federal courts in numerous cities. His clients include health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, retailers, telecommunications companies, manufacturers, and internet companies. From January 2009 to June 2011, Jeff was Partner-in-Charge of the Firm’s Silicon Valley Office and coordinator of the antitrust and competition law practice in the Firm’s California region. Jeff has successfully defended dozens of class action lawsuits, including a successful jury verdict following a trial on antitrust claims on behalf of Macy’s. He also has represented several health care providers in various health-related litigation. In addition, Jeff has successfully defended all litigation matters brought against ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) since ICANN was formed in 1998.
100
A defendant generally may remove a civil action from state court to federal district court if the district court would have had jurisdiction had the action been originally filed in that court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). For years it seemed that a defendant had only two windows of time in which to (...)
229
The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed that courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether antitrust class action plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification, even when that requires inquiry into the merits of the underlying claims, and individual issues of damages (...)
270
This article has been nominated for the 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On March 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles that named plaintiffs in class actions could not, before class certification, (...)
1065
In its July 12, 2010, decision in Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., the California Supreme Court rejected the « pass-on » defense for claims brought under California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act. Defendants have used the pass-on defense to argue that direct purchasers of goods sold by allegedly (...)
1818
In the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather v. PSKS case, the Supreme Court held that, under the federal antitrust laws, minimum vertical resale price fixing agreements are no longer per se illegal, but governed by the rule of reason, like maximum resale price fixing. Antitrust observers were quick to (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
75011 Paris, France
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 149
New York, NY, 10001, USA
563 Chiswick High Road
W4 3AY London, UK
