| Thomas R. Freeman - Principal
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberg, P.C. T. 310 201-2100 F. 310 201-2110
Tom Freeman has been a partner at Bird Marella since 1994. His practice focuses on civil litigation at the trial and appellate levels, and criminal appeals. He has handled a broad range of complex civil matters, including claims brought under federal and state antitrust laws, federal communication laws, California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, federal and state healthcare law, tax-related litigation, federal copyright law, federal securities laws, the U.S. Constitution, and federal anti-racketeering law. Tom has handled a number of complex appeals in a wide variety of areas. On September 30, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by Tom in Henneford v. Castaneda, 130 S.Ct. 49 (2009), addressing the scope of immunity for federal officers and employees of the United States Public Health Service, which was subsequently dismissed upon plaintiff's withdrawal of all claims against the firm's client. Henneford v. Castaneda, 130 S.Ct. 487 (2009). Tom is lead counsel for the appellant on an Enterprise Zone tax-credit case currently before the California Supreme Court, Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board. Tom recently argued and prevailed in a case before the California Supreme Court, Prospect Med. Group, Inc. v. Northridge Em. Med. Group, 45 Cal.4th 497 (2009), a case of great significance to the healthcare field in which the California Supreme Court held that emergency-care providers cannot "balance bill" HMO enrollees for the difference between the amount billed by the provider and the amount paid by the HMO. In Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F. 3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008), Tom successfully argued that a long-established Ninth Circuit causation standard in civil rights cases could not stand in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. As a result, the Ninth Circuit adopted a new First Amendment standard in wrongful arrest/prosecution cases and suggested that the new standard must also be applied under the Fourth Amendment. Tom has substantial experience in class action litigation, where he has successfully brought motions that preclude and limit class allegations. He successfully argued that class allegations are subject to pre-discovery motions to strike in Canon U.S.A. v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1998), setting precedent of widespread use in a case where certification of a nationwide class was denied. He has successfully argued against class certification in a number of complex cases, including cases involving claims about allegedly defective cell phones, printers and copiers, as well as allegedly deceptive manufacturer rebate practices in one of the first published decisions affirming the dismissal of claims under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Clausen v. Nokia, 125 Cal. App. 4th 214 (2004). Tom successfully represented a leading cable television and Internet-access provider in City of Thousand Oaks v. Verizon/Adelphia, 2003 Westlaw 21421721 (9th Cir. 2003), where the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction that had prohibited a multi-million dollar acquisition of a cable television company's operating assets by another cable operator. Tom's client, Adelphia, valued the successful resolution of this litigation to be worth more than $50 million. Tom was selected to represent the Los Angeles, Orange County and Beverly Hills Bar Associations before the California Supreme Court as amicus counsel in a case of great importance to the Bar Associations, Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, 30 Cal. 4th 1037 (2003), where Tom argued and the Supreme Court held that lawyers accused of malpractice are not responsible for reimbursing so-called "lost" punitive damages. Tom has also been appointed by federal courts to represent clients on significant appeals. In Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Tom was the principal author of the respondent's merits brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. Tom was appointed by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to represent the plaintiff in Patterson v. Eagleburger, 1995 WL 492905 (9th Cir. 1995), where Tom, as counsel in Patterson, petitioned and persuaded the Ninth Circuit panel in another case, Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994 (1994), to withdraw its already-published opinion and enter a new opinion that adopted Tom's argument in Patterson. The result was a successful appeal for the client in Patterson. Tom has been a member of the Rules Advisory Committee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals since 2006. Tom co-founded and represented Canyon Back Alliance, a non-profit, public benefit corporation, in its successful efforts to preserve public access on historic recreational trails in the Santa Monica Mountains. See www.canyonback.org; Gate May Make Cranky Neighbors, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Aug. 4, 2004. Admitted
Education
Recognition • Martindale-Hubbell, A-V rating • SuperLawyers, 2006-2009 Past Positions
Reported Decisions
Noted Publications
|