John J. Atallah



John J. Atallah is an associate with Foley & Lardner LLP, where he has litigated cases in both state and federal courts and represented clients in a variety of fraud, misappropriation, and breach-of-contract disputes. Mr. Atallah has experience in litigating complex commercial and contractual matters on behalf of manufacturers, research institutions, health care plan providers, insurance brokers, financial institutions, and local government agencies. His robust pro bono practice has included the representation of clients in connection with disability rights and immigration matters, including asylum appeals and applications for legal permanent residence. Mr. Atallah is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice.

Mr. Atallah was a summer associate with Foley in 2012. He also worked as a legal specialist for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board, as a legislative assistant for Wheat Government Relations in Washington, D.C., and as an intern for the United States Senate. Before beginning his legal career, Mr. Atallah was an IT systems administrator for a medical services provider, and has substantial experience in building and repairing enterprise computer systems, as well as in resolving software-related issues.


Mr. Atallah earned his law degree from Columbia Law School (J.D., 2013), where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone scholar and the managing editor of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude from University of California, Riverside in 2009 with a B.A. in political science and international relations, and a minor in English.


Mr. Atallah is admitted to practice in California and before the Central District of California.


  • Co-author, “Not Your Product? Not Your Duty To Warn,” Law360 (August 2012)
  • “Smartphone Wars,” Science and Technology Law Review Blog (April 2012)

Representative Matters

Showing of
Foley successfully defended an international medical device company against claims brought by a former supplier for breach of a supply and distribution agreement and unfair competition. On October 5, 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the case.