Top Antitrust Lawyers-Supplement

Supplement to the Los Angeles and San Francisco

JUNE 24, 2020 Top Antitrust Lawyers 2020 Daniel G. Swanson

wanson is co-chair of Gibson expert constructed a largely, if not entirely, Dunn’s antitrust and competi- sham claim for ‘lost profits.’” Swisher had tion practice group. switched to Gibson Dunn for its appeal after S He’s preparing for an April the big loss at trial. 2021 retrial in the extraordinary case Trendsettah is challenging Selna’s re- that blew up last year when he won for versal and making other claims at the 9th his client the reversal of a $44 million U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Swanson antitrust verdict in a battle between called that a sideshow. “We’re focused now competing cigar manufacturers. Trend- on dragging discovery out of them so we settah U.S.A. Inc. v. Swisher Interna- can put the story together for the retrial,” he tional Inc., 8:14-cv-01664 (C.D. Cal., said. filed Oct. 14, 2014). In another matter, Swanson and Gibson Swanson’s advocacy for client Swish- Dunn colleagues represent Uber Technolo- er International included persuading gies Inc. in antitrust litigation brought by U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of SC Innovations Inc., a former competitor Santa Ana to rule that the court was “a known as Sidecar Technologies. Last year victim of fraud” by Trendsettah after Swanson successfully moved to disqual- learning that the plaintiff company’s ify the plaintiff’s original counsel, Quinn founder was arrested in a criminal tax Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP on the evasion case that related directly to the grounds that it had previously represented civil proceedings. Selna relieved Swan- Uber. GIBSON, DUNN & son’s defendant client from the $44 mil- The plaintiff, now represented by McK- CRUTCHER LLP lion 2016 judgment last August. Swan- ool Smith, alleges that Uber illegally mo- son said the post-verdict maneuvering nopolized the ride-hailing market in several LOS ANGELES has been so unusual that it is a “proce- U.S. cities. Sidecar is arguing a predatory PRACTICE TYPE: LITIGATION, dural unicorn” worthy of a law school pricing theory of harm based on claims that APPEALS exam. Uber undercut Sidecar’s prices to drive it “It is not an everyday occurrence…for out of business. the evidence to disclose a level of mis- Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero “It was a little weird to do it from home. representation that rises to this degree,” of San Francisco ruled against Swanson’s We’re now in discovery. Antitrust is an Swanson said. In his motion for relief motions to dismiss the case. SC Innovations interesting field because cases can go from the judgment, Swanson described Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc., 3:18-cv- forward even when the allegations may how Trendsettah presented in court “a 0744 (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 11, 2018). strain credulity.” falsely inflated picture of the profitabil- “I had my first Zoom argument. There ity of its cigarillo sales out of which its were 40 people on the line,” Swanson said. — John Roemer