Thomas R. Freeman is a principal at Bird Marella and a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law (1987). He is certified as an appellate specialist by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization and has argued countless cases before federal and state appellate courts and major motions at the trial court level.
Mr. Freeman has handled a broad range of complex matters, including claims brought under federal and state antitrust and false claims statutes, federal communication laws, California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, healthcare law, copyright law, securities laws, the U.S. and California Constitutions, California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and RICO.
Recently, Mr. Freeman was lead appellate counsel for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) in a 2022 case where he successfully argued that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal by Malibu residents after the first phase of a bifurcated trial resulted in a court order declaring that the residents must have a legal obligation to remove signs and refrain from taking other actions that curtail public access to MRCA property and an adjoining public trail.
He is currently representing a wireless communications provider appealing a trial court’s dismissal of its negligence claims against a private contractor retained by the California Public Utilities Commission to administer a PUC program for providing free telephone services to low-income households. The appeal raises important questions of preemption under the Public Utilities Code and the existence of a duty owed by the contractor to exercise reasonable care to avoid inflicting purely economic injury on those who provide telephone services under the PUC program.
In 2017, Mr. Freeman filed a successful petition for writ of mandate challenging a trial court’s order overruling a demurrer filed by an established California law firm in a qui tam action based on California’s False Claims Act. He filed a second petition for writ of mandate in 2019, challenging the trial court’s order overruling the law firm’s demurrer to the qui tam plaintiff’s amended complaint. Within days of receiving the Court of Appeal’s order directing the plaintiff to file an opposition brief, the case settled.
Mr. Freeman successfully represented the proponents of Measure B, a 2012 ballot initiative in Los Angeles County mandating the use of condoms in adult films, in an appeal brought by adult film producers and actors challenging the measure’s constitutionality. In Vivid Ent. v. Fielding, 774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit held that the ballot proponents had standing to defend the measure’s constitutionality on appeal and that the measure was not unconstitutional.
Mr. Freeman has been lead appellate counsel in a wide variety of precedent-setting appeals. In Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Medical Emergency Group (2009) 45 Cal.4th 497, he successfully argued in the California Supreme Court 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.
Mr. Freeman filed a successful petition for writ of mandate in Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1 after the trial court denied a pleading challenge to the plaintiff’s allegation of a nationwide class. In a precedent-setting opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the nationwide scope of the putative class was properly challenged at the pleading stage. Prior to that ruling, trial courts had commonly ruled that any challenge to the nationwide scope of an alleged class must await the completion of expensive nationwide discovery.
And in the precedent-setting case of Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, Mr. Freeman successfully argued that contention-style deposition questions are improper because it is the lawyer’s (not the client’s) role to determine which facts support the client’s contentions, even where, as in Rifkind, the client happens to be an attorney.
Mr. Freeman is an elected member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, has an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and the Litigation Counsel of America (the Trial Lawyer Honorary Society), and is listed in Best Lawyers in America (Appellate Law and White Collar Criminal Defense) and in Los Angeles Magazine’s “Southern California Super Lawyers.”
Certified Specialist in Appellate Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Elected Member, California Academy of Appellate Lawyers
Best Lawyers in America, Appellate Law and Criminal Defense: White-Collar, 2017-present
Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, 2019 – present
Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, 2014-present
AV Preeminent® Ranking, Martindale-Hubbell
Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Magazine, 2006-2013, 2015-present
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Netflix, Inc., 2021 Westlaw 5711822 (2021): Represented Screen Actors Guild in amicus brief cautioning against the use of broad language in ruling on an issue where such language may have unintended consequences that conflict with established public policy.
Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 244 Cal.App.4th 918 (2016): Represented pro bono client in her successful effort to seek relief from entry of judgment based on mistake or excusable neglect under Section 473(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Buchalter Nemer v. Superior Court, 2017 Westlaw 3188524 (2017): Successful petition for writ of mandate challenging trial court’s denial of demurrer in a case brought under the California False Claims Act.
Vivid Ent. v. Fielding, 774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014): Represented proponents of Measure B, mandating the use of condoms in adult films, before the Ninth Circuit. Prevailed (1) against an attack on the intervening ballot proponents’ “standing” to participate and (2) on the merits, with Circuit holding that the condom mandate was reasonably tailored to protect public health.
Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court, 227 Cal. App. 4th 226 (2014): Prevailed on behalf of roofing manufacturer GAF in published opinion affirming trial court’s grant of summary adjudication of the defendant oil company’s “mistake of fact” defense to GAF’s breach of contract claim.
Prime Healthcare Services v. Brotman Medical Center, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 11-459 (2012): Retained to represent Brotman in successfully opposing a petition for certiorari after the U.S. Supreme Court directed the filing of an opposition brief.
Rappaport v. Gelfand, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1213 (2011): Successfully represented a dissociating partner of a law on a question of first impression under the Uniform Partnership Act.
Culver v. Prospect, 2011 Westlaw 5120838 (Cal. App. 2011): Filed an appeal on behalf of a corporate client challenging the trial court’s entry of a preliminary injunction precluding the corporation from making a stock offering, which was essential to the restructuring of corporate debt. The appellate court reversed, holding that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 2010 Westlaw 459609 (Cal. App. 2010): Filed a petition for writ of mandate on behalf of our client, the City of Hermosa Beach, attacking the trial court’s entry of summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff oil company. The appellate court ruled in favor of the City, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact on the element of proximate cause.
La v. Nokia Inc., 2010 Westlaw 4245533 (Cal. App. 2010): Defended Nokia against a putative class action based on the allegation that a model of its cellular phone was defective. The trial and appellate courts ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Medical Emergency Group, 45 Cal. 4th 497 (2009): Argued successfully that emergency medical providers cannot “balance bill” HMO enrollees.
Henneford v. Castaneda, 130 S.Ct. 487 (2009): Lead author of successful petition for certiorari challenging an adverse decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the scope of immunity for federal officers and employees. Shortly after the Supreme Court granted cert, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against our client.
Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. FTB, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1082 (2009): Argued appeal challenging FTB’s rejection of tax credits awarded under the Enterprise Zone Act of 1996.
Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F. 3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008): Successfully represented a civil rights plaintiff/businessman in precedent-setting case against a municipality for retaliation in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Pollard v. Ericsson/Clausen v. Nokia, 125 Cal. App. 4th 214 (2004): Obtained dismissal of claims under Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which was affirmed on appeal.
Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, 30 Cal. 4th 1037 (2003): Filed Amicus Brief for Bar Associations of Los Angeles County, Orange County and Beverly Hills addressing availability of “lost” punitive damages in legal malpractice cases.
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2001): Filed a successful writ application, requiring entry of summary adjudication on plaintiff’s class action claim concerning credit card surcharges.
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 120 S. Ct. 746 (2000): Served as lead author of indigent defendant’s merits brief in this habeas case addressing the constitutional right to counsel in criminal appeals.
Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal. 4th 429 (2000): Drafted California Supreme Court merits brief in class action lawsuit raising question concerning the trial court’s authority to deny class certification.
Canon U.S.A. v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1998): Filed successful writ application in a putative nationwide class action lawsuit.
Vu v. California Commerce Club, Inc., 58 Cal. App. 4th 229 (1997): Succeeded in arguing before appellate court that a gambler could not sue a casino to recover losses based on alleged “cheating” in poker because gambling losses are inherently speculative.
Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632 (1996): Represented, on a pro bono basis, family members of those admitted into nursing homes in a precedent-setting case invalidating deceptive third-party guarantees.
Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (1994): Argued successfully, and established precedent of widespread use that “contention” deposition questions are improper.
In re Owens-Illinois, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 179 (1992): Co-authored respondent’s briefs in successful antitrust appeal before Federal Trade Commission involving merger between two leading manufacturers of glass containers.
On July 28, 2022, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee granted final approval of a $92 million settlement for users of TikTok in one of the country’s largest and most high-profile class actions. A nationwide group of plaintiffs alleged that TikTok violated consumer protection and data privacy laws. In ...
Representing the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), Bird Marella attorney and certified appellate specialist Tom Freeman won dismissal of an appeal brought by Malibu residents who sought to bar the public from MRCA property and public trails in the Santa Monica Mountains. In the first phase of a bifurcated ...
For the past twenty years, Bird Marella attorneys have been consecutively recognized as top rated attorneys among the Southern California Super Lawyers list. The firm is proud of its reputation for providing distinguished lawyers that are not only well-respected by the bench, but also its peers. Congratulations to the principals selected for ...
Bird Marella attorneys Paul Chan and Thomas Freeman prevailed on appeal on behalf of the former owner of a General Motors dealership who was sued by the purchaser of his business. The dealership’s new owner sued for damages after assuming day-to-day management of the business claiming that it failed because of ...
Bird Marella attorneys Ekwan Rhow, Marc Masters, and Tom Freeman secured a long-awaited $92 million settlement in one of the country’s largest and most high-profile class action suits against social media giant TikTok in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On October 1, 2021, U.S. District ...
Bird Marella is proud to announce its inclusion in the 2022 edition of Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch by U.S. News. Nearly half of the firm’s entire roster of attorneys have been recognized and selected by their peers as outstanding attorneys in their respective areas of expertise. The Best Lawyers in America (2022 Edition) Terry W. Bird ...
Bird Marella is honored to recognize the attorneys who have been selected for inclusion in the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers list: Sharon Ben-Shahar Mayer Terry W. Bird Joel E. Boxer Paul S. Chan Mark T. Drooks Thomas R. Freeman Benjamin N. Gluck (Top 100) Gary S. Lincenberg Vincent J. Marella Ronald ...
Attorneys Ron Nessim, Tom Freeman, Ashley Bowman, and Jon Jackson were co-counsel to the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and assisted in the drafting of an amicus curiae brief in the California Court of Appeal in connection with a dispute between Fox and ...
Bird Marella is proud to announce that 18 of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized and selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2021 edition of Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Sharon Ben-Shahar Mayer – Criminal Defense: White-Collar Terry W. Bird – Commercial Litigation, ...
Principals Tom Freeman and Terry Bird, along with associate Naomi Solomon, secured an eminent domain victory for Hyundai Motor America involving its U.S. corporate headquarters, a $200 million state-of-the-art facility located off the 405 freeway in Orange County. The case arose after the government seized a portion of the property ...
Co-Author, “’Isn’t that Special: The Limited Powers of Special Masters,” California Litigation, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2021
Author, “Left at the Altar: SCOTUS Promises to Clarify its Cryptic Marks Rule for Divining the Precedential Impact of Plurality Decisions—But Doesn’t,” California Litigation, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2018)
Author, “Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Corp.: The Definitive Analysis of California Summary Judgment Law,” 23 CEB Civ. Lit. Rptr. 143, Aug. 2001
Author, “Guardians at the Gate: Judicial Scrutiny of Expert Testimony,” Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine, July-August 2001
Author, “Summary Judgment: Untangling The Moving Party’s Initial Burden,” 22 CEB Civil Lit. Rep. 230, Nov. 2000
Author, “Put Up or Shut Up: Summary Judgment in California and Federal Courts,” Los Angeles Magazine, Nov. 1999
Thomas R. Freeman is a principal at Bird Marella and a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law (1987). He is certified as an appellate specialist by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization and has argued countless cases before federal and state appellate courts and major motions at the trial court level.
Mr. Freeman has handled a broad range of complex matters, including claims brought under federal and state antitrust and false claims statutes, federal communication laws, California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, healthcare law, copyright law, securities laws, the U.S. and California Constitutions, California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and RICO.
Recently, Mr. Freeman was lead appellate counsel for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) in a 2022 case where he successfully argued that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal by Malibu residents after the first phase of a bifurcated trial resulted in a court order declaring that the residents must have a legal obligation to remove signs and refrain from taking other actions that curtail public access to MRCA property and an adjoining public trail.
He is currently representing a wireless communications provider appealing a trial court’s dismissal of its negligence claims against a private contractor retained by the California Public Utilities Commission to administer a PUC program for providing free telephone services to low-income households. The appeal raises important questions of preemption under the Public Utilities Code and the existence of a duty owed by the contractor to exercise reasonable care to avoid inflicting purely economic injury on those who provide telephone services under the PUC program.
In 2017, Mr. Freeman filed a successful petition for writ of mandate challenging a trial court’s order overruling a demurrer filed by an established California law firm in a qui tam action based on California’s False Claims Act. He filed a second petition for writ of mandate in 2019, challenging the trial court’s order overruling the law firm’s demurrer to the qui tam plaintiff’s amended complaint. Within days of receiving the Court of Appeal’s order directing the plaintiff to file an opposition brief, the case settled.
Mr. Freeman successfully represented the proponents of Measure B, a 2012 ballot initiative in Los Angeles County mandating the use of condoms in adult films, in an appeal brought by adult film producers and actors challenging the measure’s constitutionality. In Vivid Ent. v. Fielding, 774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit held that the ballot proponents had standing to defend the measure’s constitutionality on appeal and that the measure was not unconstitutional.
Mr. Freeman has been lead appellate counsel in a wide variety of precedent-setting appeals. In Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Medical Emergency Group (2009) 45 Cal.4th 497, he successfully argued in the California Supreme Court 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.
Mr. Freeman filed a successful petition for writ of mandate in Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1 after the trial court denied a pleading challenge to the plaintiff’s allegation of a nationwide class. In a precedent-setting opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the nationwide scope of the putative class was properly challenged at the pleading stage. Prior to that ruling, trial courts had commonly ruled that any challenge to the nationwide scope of an alleged class must await the completion of expensive nationwide discovery.
And in the precedent-setting case of Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, Mr. Freeman successfully argued that contention-style deposition questions are improper because it is the lawyer’s (not the client’s) role to determine which facts support the client’s contentions, even where, as in Rifkind, the client happens to be an attorney.
Mr. Freeman is an elected member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, has an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and the Litigation Counsel of America (the Trial Lawyer Honorary Society), and is listed in Best Lawyers in America (Appellate Law and White Collar Criminal Defense) and in Los Angeles Magazine’s “Southern California Super Lawyers.”
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Netflix, Inc., 2021 Westlaw 5711822 (2021): Represented Screen Actors Guild in amicus brief cautioning against the use of broad language in ruling on an issue where such language may have unintended consequences that conflict with established public policy.
Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 244 Cal.App.4th 918 (2016): Represented pro bono client in her successful effort to seek relief from entry of judgment based on mistake or excusable neglect under Section 473(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Buchalter Nemer v. Superior Court, 2017 Westlaw 3188524 (2017): Successful petition for writ of mandate challenging trial court’s denial of demurrer in a case brought under the California False Claims Act.
Vivid Ent. v. Fielding, 774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014): Represented proponents of Measure B, mandating the use of condoms in adult films, before the Ninth Circuit. Prevailed (1) against an attack on the intervening ballot proponents’ “standing” to participate and (2) on the merits, with Circuit holding that the condom mandate was reasonably tailored to protect public health.
Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court, 227 Cal. App. 4th 226 (2014): Prevailed on behalf of roofing manufacturer GAF in published opinion affirming trial court’s grant of summary adjudication of the defendant oil company’s “mistake of fact” defense to GAF’s breach of contract claim.
Prime Healthcare Services v. Brotman Medical Center, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 11-459 (2012): Retained to represent Brotman in successfully opposing a petition for certiorari after the U.S. Supreme Court directed the filing of an opposition brief.
Rappaport v. Gelfand, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1213 (2011): Successfully represented a dissociating partner of a law on a question of first impression under the Uniform Partnership Act.
Culver v. Prospect, 2011 Westlaw 5120838 (Cal. App. 2011): Filed an appeal on behalf of a corporate client challenging the trial court’s entry of a preliminary injunction precluding the corporation from making a stock offering, which was essential to the restructuring of corporate debt. The appellate court reversed, holding that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 2010 Westlaw 459609 (Cal. App. 2010): Filed a petition for writ of mandate on behalf of our client, the City of Hermosa Beach, attacking the trial court’s entry of summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff oil company. The appellate court ruled in favor of the City, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact on the element of proximate cause.
La v. Nokia Inc., 2010 Westlaw 4245533 (Cal. App. 2010): Defended Nokia against a putative class action based on the allegation that a model of its cellular phone was defective. The trial and appellate courts ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Medical Emergency Group, 45 Cal. 4th 497 (2009): Argued successfully that emergency medical providers cannot “balance bill” HMO enrollees.
Henneford v. Castaneda, 130 S.Ct. 487 (2009): Lead author of successful petition for certiorari challenging an adverse decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the scope of immunity for federal officers and employees. Shortly after the Supreme Court granted cert, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against our client.
Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. FTB, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1082 (2009): Argued appeal challenging FTB’s rejection of tax credits awarded under the Enterprise Zone Act of 1996.
Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F. 3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008): Successfully represented a civil rights plaintiff/businessman in precedent-setting case against a municipality for retaliation in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Pollard v. Ericsson/Clausen v. Nokia, 125 Cal. App. 4th 214 (2004): Obtained dismissal of claims under Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which was affirmed on appeal.
Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, 30 Cal. 4th 1037 (2003): Filed Amicus Brief for Bar Associations of Los Angeles County, Orange County and Beverly Hills addressing availability of “lost” punitive damages in legal malpractice cases.
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2001): Filed a successful writ application, requiring entry of summary adjudication on plaintiff’s class action claim concerning credit card surcharges.
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 120 S. Ct. 746 (2000): Served as lead author of indigent defendant’s merits brief in this habeas case addressing the constitutional right to counsel in criminal appeals.
Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal. 4th 429 (2000): Drafted California Supreme Court merits brief in class action lawsuit raising question concerning the trial court’s authority to deny class certification.
Canon U.S.A. v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1998): Filed successful writ application in a putative nationwide class action lawsuit.
Vu v. California Commerce Club, Inc., 58 Cal. App. 4th 229 (1997): Succeeded in arguing before appellate court that a gambler could not sue a casino to recover losses based on alleged “cheating” in poker because gambling losses are inherently speculative.
Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632 (1996): Represented, on a pro bono basis, family members of those admitted into nursing homes in a precedent-setting case invalidating deceptive third-party guarantees.
Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (1994): Argued successfully, and established precedent of widespread use that “contention” deposition questions are improper.
In re Owens-Illinois, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 179 (1992): Co-authored respondent’s briefs in successful antitrust appeal before Federal Trade Commission involving merger between two leading manufacturers of glass containers.
On July 28, 2022, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee granted final approval of a $92 million settlement for users of TikTok in one of the country’s largest and most high-profile class actions. A nationwide group of plaintiffs alleged that TikTok violated consumer protection and data privacy laws. In ...
Representing the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), Bird Marella attorney and certified appellate specialist Tom Freeman won dismissal of an appeal brought by Malibu residents who sought to bar the public from MRCA property and public trails in the Santa Monica Mountains. In the first phase of a bifurcated ...
For the past twenty years, Bird Marella attorneys have been consecutively recognized as top rated attorneys among the Southern California Super Lawyers list. The firm is proud of its reputation for providing distinguished lawyers that are not only well-respected by the bench, but also its peers. Congratulations to the principals selected for ...
Bird Marella attorneys Paul Chan and Thomas Freeman prevailed on appeal on behalf of the former owner of a General Motors dealership who was sued by the purchaser of his business. The dealership’s new owner sued for damages after assuming day-to-day management of the business claiming that it failed because of ...
Bird Marella attorneys Ekwan Rhow, Marc Masters, and Tom Freeman secured a long-awaited $92 million settlement in one of the country’s largest and most high-profile class action suits against social media giant TikTok in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On October 1, 2021, U.S. District ...
Bird Marella is proud to announce its inclusion in the 2022 edition of Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch by U.S. News. Nearly half of the firm’s entire roster of attorneys have been recognized and selected by their peers as outstanding attorneys in their respective areas of expertise. The Best Lawyers in America (2022 Edition) Terry W. Bird ...
Bird Marella is honored to recognize the attorneys who have been selected for inclusion in the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers list: Sharon Ben-Shahar Mayer Terry W. Bird Joel E. Boxer Paul S. Chan Mark T. Drooks Thomas R. Freeman Benjamin N. Gluck (Top 100) Gary S. Lincenberg Vincent J. Marella Ronald ...
Attorneys Ron Nessim, Tom Freeman, Ashley Bowman, and Jon Jackson were co-counsel to the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and assisted in the drafting of an amicus curiae brief in the California Court of Appeal in connection with a dispute between Fox and ...
Bird Marella is proud to announce that 18 of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized and selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2021 edition of Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Sharon Ben-Shahar Mayer – Criminal Defense: White-Collar Terry W. Bird – Commercial Litigation, ...
Principals Tom Freeman and Terry Bird, along with associate Naomi Solomon, secured an eminent domain victory for Hyundai Motor America involving its U.S. corporate headquarters, a $200 million state-of-the-art facility located off the 405 freeway in Orange County. The case arose after the government seized a portion of the property ...
Co-Author, “’Isn’t that Special: The Limited Powers of Special Masters,” California Litigation, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2021
Author, “Left at the Altar: SCOTUS Promises to Clarify its Cryptic Marks Rule for Divining the Precedential Impact of Plurality Decisions—But Doesn’t,” California Litigation, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2018)
Author, “Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Corp.: The Definitive Analysis of California Summary Judgment Law,” 23 CEB Civ. Lit. Rptr. 143, Aug. 2001
Author, “Guardians at the Gate: Judicial Scrutiny of Expert Testimony,” Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine, July-August 2001
Author, “Summary Judgment: Untangling The Moving Party’s Initial Burden,” 22 CEB Civil Lit. Rep. 230, Nov. 2000
Author, “Put Up or Shut Up: Summary Judgment in California and Federal Courts,” Los Angeles Magazine, Nov. 1999