Mr. Burgess has handled complex litigation matters in the Supreme Court; in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, D.C. and Federal Circuits; in several state appellate courts; in bankruptcy court; and in numerous federal and state trial courts.
Mr. Burgess has briefed and argued several significant recent appeals:
- Successfully defended class-action settlement in antitrust litigation in the Second Circuit on appeal raising issue of first impression concerning the authority of claims administrators to opt customers out of class actions. See In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 2020 WL 2146901 (2d Cir. May 5, 2020).
- Successfully represented the National Mining Association in the D.C. Circuit in defense of the decision by the Environmental Protection Agency not to finalize new “financial responsibility” requirements for the hardrock mining industry under Section 108(b) of CERCLA. Presented oral argument on behalf of coalition of industry intervenors. See Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
- Persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in two matters in the 2019 Term, led merits briefing, and presented oral argument. Secured 7-2 decision for a habeas petitioner, in a decision holding that restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions are not applicable to timely motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). See Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020).
- Successfully defended judgment for BarBri, Inc. in affirmance of claims brought by a bar-exam competitor under the Sherman Act and RICO. Mr. Burgess co-authored motion to dismiss briefing in litigation in the Southern District of New York, and then led successful appellate effort in the Second Circuit. See LLM Bar Exam, LLC v. BarBri, Inc., 922 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2019).
- Successfully represented client in the D.C. Circuit in a litigation that resulted in the dismissal of a challenge to a shipping client’s eligibility to participate in the “Maritime Security Program” administered by the Maritime Administration and the Department of Defense. See Matson Navigation Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 895 F.3d 799 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
- Persuaded the Washington Court of Appeals to grant interlocutory review and then reverse the denial of clients’ motion for summary judgment in product liability case involving the prescription drug metoclopramide. The decision rejected an effort by the plaintiff to expand the scope of a drug company’s duty to warn under state law to extend beyond the warnings provided with a product’s package insert. See Sherman v. Pfizer, Inc., P.3d, 2019 WL 1923583 (Wash. App. 2019).
