Jeffrey A. LeVee

Jones Day (Los Angeles)
Lawyer (Partner)

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.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Jones Day (Los Angeles)
Jones Day (Sillicon Valley)
Jones Day (Washington DC)
Jones Day (Chicago)

Articles

2927 Bulletin

Jeffrey A. LeVee, John M. Majoras, Paula W. Render The US Supreme Court confirms that courts must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether antitrust class action plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification (Comcast)

132

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 (...)

Jeffrey A. LeVee, Paula W. Render The US Supreme Court holds that named plaintiffs in class actions could not, before class certification, avoid going to federal court by stipulating to a cap on damages (Standard Fire Ins. v. Knowles)

51

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, avoid going to federal court by stipulating to a cap on damages. Although Standard Fire was not an antitrust case, the decision will (...)

Jeffrey A. LeVee, Margaret A. Ward The Superior Court of the State of California (County of Alameda) challenges minimum resale price maintenance as per se illegal (DermaQuest)

1728

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 (...)

Send a message