理查德·戴维斯从事复杂商业诉讼业务逾三十五载。他隶属于本所证券执法与诉讼、消费者法律、金融与集体诉讼及商业诉讼业务组。在医疗保健、分销与特许经营、酒店业事务领域亦拥有丰富经验。
Prior to joining Foley & Lardner, Rich was a litigation partner with the Chicago office of Rudnick & Wolfe, a predecessor firm to DLA Piper. From 1994 to 2006, he worked in Foley’s former West Palm Beach office. Rich, who resides in Boca Raton, maintains an active practice throughout South Florida, as well as elsewhere in the state.
代表经验
- Won dismissal, with prejudice, of a multimillion-dollar consumer class action lawsuit alleging that a real estate developer wrongfully required purchasers to buy title insurance. (U.S. District Court, Miami)
- Won dismissal of a product mislabeling case alleging violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeking the removal of a nationally known consumer product from hundreds of retail stores in Florida, plus damages. (Circuit Court, County Court, West Palm Beach)
- Won judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict) on the fourth day of a jury trial for an investment company client. The client’s former chief operating officer sought more than US$10m in damages on Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims. (U.S. District Court, Orlando)
- Won summary judgment, as co-counsel for a Fortune 50 company, in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and fraud claims related to the company’s alleged failure to contribute US$7m to a start-up technology venture. (U.S. District Court, West Palm Beach)
- Won dismissal of two underwriting firms from a securities fraud class action lawsuit arising from a public company’s US$20m initial public offering. (U.S. District Court, Miami)
- Won dismissal of a former investment advisor to Miami-Dade County from a tortious interference lawsuit brought by one of the County’s former bond underwriting firms. (U.S. District Court, Miami)
- Obtained dismissal for a Fortune 50 company of four lawsuits filed by a health care provider alleging underpayment by a health insurance plan provider. (U.S. District Court, West Palm Beach, and Circuit Court, West Palm Beach)
- Obtained dismissal of a defamation action, for a Fortune 50 company, for 0.01% of US$3m in claimed damages by the plaintiff’s acceptance of an Offer of Judgment. (Circuit Court, Tavernier/Key Largo)
- Won summary judgment, as co-counsel for a Fortune 50 company, of a seven-figure lawsuit alleging defamation and tortious interference claims. (Circuit Court, Orlando)
- Won a seven-figure arbitration award against a public company for its failure to timely process a former director’s exercise of stock options. (Private arbitration, Orlando)
- Successfully settled, on behalf of a public company and its directors, a securities fraud class action lawsuit arising from the company’s US$37m initial public offering. (U.S. District Court, Tampa)
- Successfully settled, as co-counsel for a leading website hosting provider, a consumer class action lawsuit alleging a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, for small percentages of the damages and attorney’s fees sought. (Circuit Court, Fort Lauderdale)
- Represented a public company and its directors in seven class action lawsuits seeking to enjoin a US$200+m acquisition of the company’s stock. (U.S. District Court, Tampa, and Circuit Court, St. Petersburg)
- Successfully settled various litigation asserting claims for breaches of stock purchase, asset acquisition and shareholder agreements; breaches of franchise agreements; breaches of non-competition agreements; misappropriation of trade secrets and trademark infringement.
奖项与表彰
- Rich has been Peer Review Rated as AV Preeminent®, the highest performance rating in the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ system.
社区参与
- Former member of the boards of Junior Achievement of the Palm Beaches and the Young Adult Division of the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County.
- Former tutor in the Fourth Presbyterian Church program for disadvantaged youth in Chicago
- Former mentor in the Brandeis University Career Beginnings program
- Former volunteer in the Chicago Sun-Times Homework Hotline program
演讲和出版物
- “Eleventh Circuit Vacates Pre-Spokeo ‘Beat the Clock’ FACTA Class Action Settlement for Lack of Standing Post-Spokeo,” JD Supra (December 16, 2020)
- “Divided Eleventh Circuit Panel Bars Incentive Awards for Class Representatives in Class Action Settlements,” JD Supra (September 23, 2020)
- “Supreme Court Rejects Tolling Argument for Nonnamed Class Members’ Section 11 Claims,” The National Law Review (June 26, 2017)
- “Florida Class Action Case Law Aligns With Comcast Ruling,” Law360 (Appellate, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Florida) (November 25, 2014)
- “Mum’s The Word on Fla.’s Muddled Commonality Standard,” Law360 (Appellate, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Florida) (November 5, 2014)
- “Three Major Supreme Court Decisions on the 1934 Act During 2011,” Legal News: Securities Enforcement & Litigation (November 28, 2011)
Foley 荣获大迈阿密地区法律服务机构颁发的平等司法公益奖
Foley & Lardner LLP 获得了大迈阿密地区法律服务组织的 "平等司法公益大公司奖"。
Master of Its Choice of Forum?
On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether a plaintiff may compel the remand of a case removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction by voluntarily amending its complaint to leave only state law claims
集体诉讼代表人不得获得激励性奖励——第十一巡回法院驳回对其独一无二的律师资格限制的全体法官复议请求
Last week, the Eleventh Circuit declined, 7–4, to reconsider en banc a divided panel’s September 2020 decision barring incentive awards to class representatives for their work in class actions.
Eleventh Circuit Vacates Pre-Spokeo “Beat the Clock” FACTA Class Action Settlement for Lack of Standing Post-Spokeo
The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, has vacated a pre-Spokeo “beat the clock” class action settlement for lack of standing post-Spokeo. This decision is reflective of a developing trend in the Eleventh Circuit to undertake exacting reviews of class action settlements.
肯尼迪、戴维斯就集体诉讼和解中的激励性付款问题接受《Law360》采访
合伙人理查德·戴维斯与高级顾问克里斯蒂娜·肯尼迪在《Law360》文章《获得职场集体诉讼和解批准的四大要诀》中被引述。该文建议劳动法律师重新审视集体诉讼和解协议，鉴于近期第十一巡回法院的裁决，需确保对首席原告的激励性付款不会导致整个和解协议告吹。
美国第十一巡回法院分庭裁定禁止在集体诉讼和解中向集体代表授予激励性奖励
尽管《规则23》未予授权，但向集体诉讼代表人发放激励奖金是集体诉讼和解中的常见做法。然而，第十一巡回法院合议庭上周四以意见分歧的裁决认定，此类支付行为被1880年代"具有直接关联性的最高法院判例"严格禁止。