Hausfeld (San Francisco)

Christopher Lebsock

Hausfeld (San Francisco)

Chris is a member of the firm’s antitrust and financial services groups and represents consumers and businesses in complex legal disputes in a variety of jurisdictions across the globe. Chris regularly consults with clients, trade associations, and law firms about competition issues and legal strategies that span international borders. Chris has briefed and/or argued matters in numerous courts across the United States, including in the California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court.


Linked authors

Hausfeld (San Francisco)
Hausfeld (San Francisco)
Hausfeld (Philadelphia)
Hausfeld (London)
Hausfeld (London)


268 Bulletin

Christopher Lebsock, Halli Spraggins The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, declares that a class can be certified without considering whether there are more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members (Olean Wholesale Grocery / Bumble Bee Foods)


Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been the basic mechanism for antitrust classes to obtain monetary damages. This is because antitrust violations usually meet the requirement of issues predominantly common to all class members. For more than a decade now, however, courts (...)

Christopher Lebsock, Kyle Bates The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules that attorney fees should be evaluated for possible collusion even in settlements that occur after class certification (Briseño / Henderson)


This article has been nominated for the 2022 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On June 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Briseño v. Henderson, reversing the Central District of California’s approval of a class action settlement (...)

Christopher Lebsock, Samantha Stein The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit raises the bar for plaintiffs for a price-fixing action by setting a “more likely than not” standard to evaluate circumstantial evidence (Valspar / DuPont de Nemours)


In its recent decision in Valspar Corp. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., the Third Circuit raised the bar for plaintiffs opposing summary judgment in antitrust cases by setting a “more likely than not” standard to evaluate circumstantial evidence—a standard the dissent called an “unworkable (...)

Send a message