Source: https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/bryan-merryman/122614
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 15:02:50+00:00

Document:
Mr. Merryman is the Executive Partner of the Los Angeles office. He has a national practice handling complex business disputes, primarily class actions.
Mr. Merryman represents a broad range of clients in complex commercial litigation, including antitrust, consumer and securities class actions, as well as disputes involving contracts, unfair competition and business torts. Mr. Merryman has tried jury and non-jury cases, handled arbitrations, and appeared before various state and local administrative agencies.
Some of Mr. Merryman's current and recent cases are described below.
Representation of a national cable service provider in defense of a putative nationwide class action filed on behalf of former customers involving its data retention and privacy policies and alleging the company violated the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act, two related California privacy statues and an implied contract. In March 2013, the court granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of our client.
Representation of a national fitness club in defense of a putative class action filed on behalf of all current and former members alleging its form membership agreement required members to waive certain rights in violation of several New Jersey consumer protection statutes. In March 2013, the court granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of our client. Sauro v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC, 2013 WL 978807 (D.N.J.).
Representation of a consumer products company in multi-district litigation in defense of an action filed on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of bottles and cups, alleging claims under the consumer protection statutes of numerous states, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment based on the company’s use of polycarbonate plastic in certain products. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a multi-state class and later denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a Missouri class. In re Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1967, 276 F.R.D. 336 (July 5, 2011); In re BPA Litigation; 2011 WL 6740338 (Dec. 22, 2011).
Representation of an Italian film production and distribution company in an arbitration against a US motion picture production company before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution involving certain foreign distribution rights for The Rum Diary. In July 2011, after a hearing on the merits, the arbitrator found in favor of our client and, subsequently, awarded fees and costs to our client as the prevailing party.
Representation of one of Nevada’s largest real estate developers in an arbitration against five of the country’s largest home builders involving a large residential and commercial development outside of Las Vegas. In 2008, the five home builders stopped work on the project due to the real estate downturn. We commenced an arbitration seeking an order that the project go forward or that our client be compensated for its losses due to the improper work stoppage. In July 2010, after a two-week hearing, the arbitral tribunal awarded our client damages of US$36,815,834. The US District Court, District of Nevada, confirmed the award and entered judgment in favor of our client in November 2010. The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in 2012.
Representation of a back office services provider to emergency physician groups in defense of an action on behalf of a putative class of patients who alleged claims under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and consumer protection statutes on the basis that they were overcharged and received communications in violation of the Act. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In March 2012, the California court of appeal affirmed. The trial court then granted summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of our client.
Representation of an electric power generator and marketer in the defense of over twenty class actions, alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws. The courts dismissed every action in which the Firm's client filed a motion to dismiss. The ninth circuit affirmed all of the judgments. People of the State of California, ex rel; Bill Lockyer v. Mirant Corporation, et al., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004); Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., et al., 384 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2004); T & E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading and Mktg., LLC,No. 03-56793, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3315 (9th Cir. 2005); California, ex rel; Bill Lockyer v. Transcanada Power, L.P., 2004 WL 2315717 (9th Cir. 2004).
Representation of a cable service provider in defense of a putative nationwide class action filed on behalf of all digital telephone customers alleging violations of RICO, fraud and negligence. The district court granted our client's motion to dismiss based on primary jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The ninth circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 110 (9th Cir. 2008).
Representation of a cable service provider in defense of class and unfair competition claims on behalf of cable television, telephone and internet subscribers alleging the late fee assessed by the provider violated state unfair competition laws. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Firm's client. The court of appeal affirmed. Utility Consumers' Action Network, Inc. v. AT&T Broadband of Southern Cal., Inc., et al., 135 Cal App. 4th 1023 (2006).
Representation of an oil refiner in defense of a putative class action filed on behalf of 25,000 Shell and Texaco dealers alleging a Sherman Act claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Firm's client, which the ninth circuit affirmed. Dagher v. Saudi Refining, Inc., et al., 369 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2004). In 2007, the same putative class, except for those dealers who were plaintiffs in Dagher, filed another Sherman Act case under a different theory. The district court granted our client's motion to dismiss, and the ninth circuit affirmed. Madani v. Saudi Refining, Inc., et al., 357 Fed. Appx. 158, 2009 WL 4877701 (C.A.9 (Cal.)).
Representation of two cable service providers in defense of separate class and unfair competition actions alleging improper billing for service outages. In the first case, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, after which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her case. In the second case, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case after limited discovery and prior to the deadline for filing their motion for class certification.
Representation of a national fitness club in defense of a putative nationwide class action alleging the early termination fee in its form contract constituted an illegal penalty and was not enforceable. The court granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the Firm's client.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.