Eric helps clients resolve complex disputes in difficult circumstances. His practice focuses on all kinds of business, commercial, product liability and tort litigation, particularly in matters involving significant financial exposure and intricate legal issues.
Stationed in Shook’s Denver office, Eric has represented clients in forums throughout the country with cases involving a multitude of state and federal laws. His experience includes mass tort matters consolidated into multidistrict litigation, as well as class action proceedings. Outside of the courtroom, Eric is well versed in using arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to expediently resolve high-stakes business disputes in a cost effective manner.
Eric has worked with clients in a wide variety of industries, including the information technology, healthcare, medical/surgical device, alarm protection, finance/lending and automotive sectors, among many others. The breadth of his experience informs his ability to quickly learn new industries and subject matters.
Class Action - Trial Counsel. Eric was a member of a trial team retained to defend a national nursing home chain in a case involving allegations of chronic understaffing. Eric assisted in the development of various fact and expert evidence, and also drafted several key motions regarding class and jurisdictional issues. The case resolved on a confidential basis before trial while several motions attacking the class were still pending (Arkansas).
Commercial Litigation. Eric represented the former Chief Executive Officer of one of California’s largest pre-fabricated building component manufacturers in litigation stemming from the alleged breach of a guaranty agreement securing a $20 million commercial loan. After asserting third-party claims against the principal obligor and several co-guarantors for exoneration and contribution, as well as counterclaims against the plaintiff, and defending the claims against motions to dismiss, the case settled for a fraction of the amount originally sought against the client (Colorado).
Trade Secret and Non-Competition Litigation. Eric obtained a preliminary injunction against three former employees of a national credit restoration business prohibiting the former employees from engaging in competitive business or disclosing the client's trade secrets contrary to their employment agreements. Eric presented the client's CEO as the primary witness at the injunction hearing and drafted the successful motion papers. The injunction resulted in a confidential settlement in favor of the client (Colorado).
Product Liability Litigation. Eric supported the trial team in the defense of design defect, failure to warn and punitive damages claims against a pipe-component manufacturer, resulting in a complete defense verdict (New Jersey).
Confidential JAMS Arbitration. Eric second-chaired the prosecution of a breach-of-contract and declaratory judgment action following the $1.3 billion sale of a global healthcare technology business unit. In addition to presenting evidence and argument during the seven-day hearing, Eric managed all aspects of the case work-up, including numerous depositions and the production of large volumes of documents and electronically stored information on an expedited schedule (California).
Multidistrict Litigation. Eric served as national coordinating counsel for dispositive motions in a consolidated pelvic mesh MDL. He led a team of attorneys in identifying and briefing summary judgment issues for approximately 150 initial cases. The legal issues included statutes of limitation, negligence, all theories of product liability, breach of warranty, loss of consortium, and punitive damages under more than 40 states’ laws, as well as Daubert challenges to various expert witnesses. In re Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Product Liability Litig. (S.D. W. Va.).
Confidential Arbitration. Eric was a member of a trial team that defended a Fortune 500 client in a complex commercial dispute involving claims of lost revenue and lost business value exceeding $240 million. Eric assisted in the presentation of numerous witnesses at a two-week hearing, drafted pre- and post-arbitration briefs involving several issues of first impression, and also assisted with all aspects of discovery, including marshalling millions of pages of electronically-stored information (North Dakota).
Confidential Mediation. Eric helped to resolve contract and consumer protection claims in a business dispute involving alleged losses of more than $30 million. Eric helped develop factual evidence and draft mediation briefing leading to a favorable pre-suit resolution (South Carolina).
Medical Device Litigation. Eric helped research and draft a winning summary judgment motion for a client in a case alleging various product defects related to a surgical stapler used in a gastric bypass revision surgery (Minnesota).
Automotive Product Liability Litigation. Eric represented a multinational engineering and electronics company in litigation stemming from a single vehicle, multi-rollover accident. The plaintiff alleged a defect in the occupant restraint controller caused the airbags not to deploy. The case resolved on a confidential basis following mediation where evidence was presented that the client’s product performed appropriately and that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by failure to wear a seat belt (D. Colo.).
Automotive and Commercial Vehicle Litigation. Eric supported the trial team in a case involving allegations that faulty brakes were responsible for a school bus crash where plaintiffs sought to recover in excess of $50 million in economic damages. Following an eight-week trial, the jury returned a full defense verdict. Gleason v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Sys. (Missouri).
White-Collar Criminal Defense. Eric defended a pro bono client against a 72-count federal indictment for conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing fraudulent tax returns in excess of $95 million. Eric’s client pled guilty to two counts of the indictment. Eric drafted the client’s sentencing memorandum and argued at the sentencing hearing for acceptance of a downward departure based primarily on the discrepancy between the actual and attempted loss resulting from the scheme. The judge imposed a sentence of less than half of the time originally sought by the government and below the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. U.S. v. Poynter, II (W.D. Mo.).
Working with Experts under the Amended Federal Rules, Tort Academy (December 2013).