|
Experience:
Fredrick Levin is a litigator who represents local, national and multinational corporations in complex litigation. He has broad experience representing clients across a variety of matters. For example, in general civil litigation, he has represented plaintiffs and defendants in actions involving allegations of breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty. His practice also includes the defense of national accounting firms in malpractice claims, and the representation of corporations, officers and directors in direct, derivative, and class action litigation regarding corporate governance.
Frederick has a particular practice emphasis on disputes involving the banking and finance industry. He has represented financial institutions in the enforcement of loan and security agreements, and has defended financial institutions (as well as other corporations) in class action litigation under federal and state securities and consumer protection statutes.
Another focus area of Frederick's practice involves entertainment and intellectual property. He has represented the Nederlander Organization in numerous transactional and adversarial matters, and also has represented artistic talent in contract negotiations. For a number of corporate clients, Frederick has defended and prosecuted claims involving copyright, trade secrets and the ownership of intellectual property.
Beyond his trial practice Frederick is experienced in alternative dispute resolution. He has represented and advised numerous firm clients in the drafting and enforcement of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution agreements.
Frederick joined Mayer Brown in 1989 and was named a partner 1998. Before coming to the firm he served as a law clerk to the Honorable John Feikens of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Notable Engagements:
International Marble and Granite of Colorado, Inc. v. Congress Financial Corporation, et al., 465 F.Supp.2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2006); Hitchcock Industries, Inc. v. Wachovia Capital Finance Corporation (Western)(Los Angeles County, Cal. 2006). Served as lead counsel in parallel federal and state actions against Congress, a subsidiary of Wachovia Bank, NA. After the federal court granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its federal complaint rather than re-plead; thereafter, the federal court declared the lender the "prevailing party" and awarded it attorney's fees and costs. In a parallel state court action, the state court sustained without leave to amend our demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint seeking $80 Million for fraud and breach of contract.
In re Imperial Credit Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2003) sub nom Mortensen v. Snavely, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,334 (9th Cir. 2005). Obtained summary judgment for the defense in the trial court on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to prove loss causation as a matter of law; then successfully defended the judgment in the Ninth Circuit.
Azteca America Stations Group, L.L.C. and Pappas Telecasting Companies v. International Media Group, Inc. et. al. (Cal. App. 2004). In an action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, obtained summary judgment in favor of the defendants (a television station and its former executives) in a $300 million breach of contract and fraud action and successfully defended the judgment in the Court of Appeal.
Mitchell v. Bankfirst (N.D. Cal. 2003). Defense of putative class action alleging that Bankfirst violated the Truth in Lending Act and California Business & Professions Code 17200 by failing to disclose alleged termination charges. The District Court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the alleged termination charges were not termination charges within the meaning of TILA as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit reversed on the grounds that Plaintiff was entitled to additional discovery. After remand, the matter was settled favorably while cross-motions for summary judgment were pending.
Mitchell v. American Fair Credit Assoc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1345, 1351 (1st Dist. 2002). Defense of a California class action alleging fraud in connection with a credit card program; defense successfully enforced the arbitration provision contained in the membership agreement against a substantial portion of the absent class members and negotiated and obtained approval of a nationwide class action settlement.
Roe v. Gray, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Colo. 2001). Successful defense of nationwide class action against United Credit National Bank under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Truth in Lending Act. Roe, the Plaintiff, a North Carolina resident, filed suit in Colorado to take advantage of certain favorable Tenth Circuit precedent. The defense responded by filing suit against Roe in North Carolina. The matter terminated favorably to the defense after the Colorado court was persuaded to stay its proceedings in favor of defense's North Carolina action.
UICI v. Roe (E. D. N.C. 2001). UICI, as successor to United Credit National Bank, initiated this proceeding under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act to compel Roe to arbitrate the claims raised in his Colorado nation-wide class action. After extensive briefing regarding the legislative history of CROA and its sister federal statutes, FRCA, ECOA, and CCPA, the court held that United Credit National Bank had complied with South Dakota's and Nevada's banking codes to validly amend its cardholder agreements to include an arbitration provision by means of a "Change of Terms Notice" mailed to the cardholders, and, in a case of first impression, held that CROA claims are arbitrable. Accordingly, the court granted motion for summary judgment and ordered Roe to arbitrate his claims individually in North Carolina.
Willis v. AutoBond Acceptance Corporation, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. A-99-194-JN. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a putative nationwide securities class action. The Court refused to allow Plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile in light of the disclosures made by the company in its SEC Filings.
Jordan v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 73 F. Supp. 2d 469 (D.N.J. 1999). Defense of a purported class action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act and New Jersey's unfair trade practices act. The District Court granted the defense's motion to dismiss, finding that Chrysler did not contractually assume the dealer's liability under the FTC's All Holder Rule and that Chrysler could not be liable for the alleged TILA violation because it was not "apparent on the face" of the retail installment contract.
Crosby v. Gold Key Leasing (D. Az. 1996). Defense of a purported class action against automobile leasing company under the Federal Consumer Leasing Act, Federal Reserve Board, Regulation M, and the Arizona consumer fraud statute. The plaintiff alleged that Gold Key had failed to properly disclose the existence of the manufacturer's warranty (as required by Reg. M) and failed to properly disclose the Net Trade-in allowance as required by the CLA. Successfully moved to dismiss the warranty disclosure claim and settled the net trade-in allowance claim for a nominal sum. Argued the successful motion to dismiss and negotiated the settlement of the Net Trade-In allowance claim.
Chrysler Credit de Puerto Rico, S.A. adv. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Arbitration, San Juan, Puerto Rico (1994) (successfully enforced Chrysler Credit's perfected security interests in 500 automobiles).
Vignocchi v. Chrysler Credit Corporation (Cook County, Illinois 1992). Defense of a purported Illinois class action alleging that Chrysler Credit's disclosure of dealer extended warranties violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Argued the successful motion for summary judgment.
Education:
The University of Michigan Law School, JD, 1988; Editor, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Princeton University, AB, cum laude, 1985. |
