Casey Grabenstein
Casey Grabenstein
Primary Office
Experience

Class Action Matters

  • Served as lead defense counsel for 10 manufacturers and retailers in a coordinated wave of roughly 20 putative consumer fraud class actions. Plaintiffs alleged the products violated state regulatory limits and sought to void every sale statewide. All 12 of the cases he defended have been dismissed.
  • Obtained dismissal of five putative consumer fraud class actions in the Northern District of Illinois from five different judges within three weeks. 
  • Obtained dismissal of a putative consumer fraud class action for lack of Article III standing in the District of Arizona. The court then held the dismissal was with prejudice, an unusual result for a jurisdictional ruling.
  • Obtained dismissal of two putative consumer fraud class actions on standing grounds in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division.
  • Defeated class certification for a major national auto insurer in a putative class action challenging the software it used to value total-loss vehicle claims. The court found plaintiffs failed to establish commonality, predominance, or superiority. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a published opinion.
  • Defeated class certification for a major national auto insurer in a parallel Florida class action, then obtained summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in a published opinion.
  • Obtained summary judgment for a national beverage company in a putative consumer fraud class action challenging “lite” labeling. Earlier motion practice resulted in the dismissal of the “Made in USA” and nutrition-panel claims with prejudice.
  • Obtained dismissal of a putative class action against a major research university alleging Title VI violations over its response to campus demonstrations after October 7, 2023.
  • Defended a major research university in a nationally prominent ERISA excessive-fee class action over its 403(b) retirement plans.
  • Defended a global food manufacturer in consumer class actions challenging health and weight-loss claims for its products.
  • Defending a pixel-tracking privacy class action under federal and state wiretap and privacy laws. Previously obtained the client’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction from a multi-defendant pixel-tracking class action in the District of Oregon.
  • Defending a multistate retailer in a data privacy class action over customer health information printed on receipts.
  • Defending multistate companies in a nationwide putative RICO and consumer fraud class action brought on behalf of plaintiffs in a dozen states.
  • Defending a beverage distributor in California wage-and-hour class and PAGA actions.
  • Defended a publicly traded real estate company and its officers in a putative securities fraud class action arising from the company’s liquidity crisis. The court dismissed the control-person claims and two of three counts, and held most challenged statements protected by the PSLRA safe harbor.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

  • Obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims against a national fuel distributor in a commercial arbitration after a subcontractor claimed a share of two multi-year municipal fuel supply contracts.
  • Obtained summary judgment for a company and its former CEO in a Section 10(b) securities fraud action brought by foreign investors over SAFE investments. 
  • Represented lenders in a $13.5 million dispute over financing for a real estate development. Obtained dismissal of the borrower’s out-of-state suit as an improper anticipatory filing.
  • Represented a global investment bank in federal securities litigation brought by a federal regulator over residential mortgage-backed securities, including proceedings in the Tenth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Defended the founder of a regulatory technology company in a securities fraud action. Former executives alleged she induced them to sell their shares while concealing a pending $10 million acquisition. After discovery, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed and joined a public statement acknowledging that discovery showed they were mistaken.
  • Won a challenge to a state agency’s decision excluding a minority- and women-owned company from a statewide licensing lottery. In consolidated litigation brought by denied applicants, the court rejected the agency’s reading of the statutory eligibility criteria and ordered a corrective lottery that recreated the client’s original odds. The client won five licenses, among the most awarded to any applicant.