Hausfeld (San Francisco)

Samantha Stein

Hausfeld (San Francisco)
Lawyer (Associate)

Samantha is an attorney in Hausfeld’s San Francisco office, specializing in complex litigation, class actions, and antitrust enforcement. She primarily represents small businesses and consumers in several major class actions, acting as the lead associate on multiple cases. As a result of this work, SuperLawyers has ranked her a “Rising Star” between 2018-2020. In her practice, Samantha has dealt with issues ranging from complex econometric modeling and expert work to managing relationships with leniency applicants under the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (“ACPERA”) to millions of documents produced in discovery. Samantha has argued in Federal Court, briefed numerous motions, and led discovery in multiple complex cases. Prior to representing clients at Hausfeld, Samantha worked in the federal court, completing a two-year judicial clerkship in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Maria- Elena James. Samantha was also a judicial extern in Northern District Court with both Magistrate Judges Donna Ryu and Maria-Elena James. During this time in the Northern District, Samantha gained exposure and experience in a wide variety of civil and criminal cases and a diversity of legal and case management issues. Samantha regularly writes on issues impacting the antitrust and class action bar and participates in events within the antitrust and consumer protection legal communities. She also supports and promotes Hausfeld’s climate justice work wherever possible.

Linked authors

Hausfeld (New York)
Hausfeld (Philadelphia)
Hausfeld (Washington)
Hausfeld (London)
Hausfeld (London)

Articles

32 Bulletin

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)

32

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