Home About Contact Attorneys Practice Areas

T. Kevin Roosevelt

 

 

T. Kevin Roosevelt

T. Kevin Roosevelt, formerly a senior associate in the Orange County office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, joined Finlayson Williams Toffer Roosevelt & Lilly LLP as a partner in 2010. Mr. Roosevelt specializes in complex business litigation, including general commercial, patent, trade secret, breach of contract, business tort, antitrust and securities litigation.

Expertise

With over ten years of experience representing corporate and individual clients in California and federal courts throughout the United States, and throughout all phases of litigation, Mr. Roosevelt has successfully resolved numerous matters for his clients, including conducting several trials resulting in favorable jury verdicts, as well as obtaining the early resolution of matters via settlement and pre-trial motion practice.

Education

Mr. Roosevelt received a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and political science from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1995. He graduated in 1999 with a law degree from the University of Southern California Law School, where he served as Senior Editor of the Southern California Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif.

Memberships & Affiliations

MMr. Roosevelt is a member of the Board of Directors of the UCLA Club of Orange County and the Rocky Mountain Foundation of Hope, and volunteers much of his time to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. He is a member of the California and Orange County Bar Associations, and is admitted to practice in several federal district courts and circuits. While at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Mr. Roosevelt was presented with the firm's Frank Wheat Memorial Award, named after a Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorney active in nonprofit work, for the work he did in defending tenants in a slumlord case in Orange County Superior Court.

Trial Experience

  • In 2003, Mr. Roosevelt conducted a jury trial for a client named Manning Riddell, LLC. At issue in the trial were claims of breach of contract and fraud.
  • In 2004, Mr. Roosevelt was part of a trial team on a misappropriation of trade secrets case for Callaway Golf Company.
  • In 2005, Mr. Roosevelt conducted a wrongful termination trial for United Parcel Service, Inc.
  • In 2006, Mr. Roosevelt conducted a jury trial for Unilever. At issue in the trial were claims of breach of warranty.
  • Also in 2006, Mr. Roosevelt went to trial on a patent case for an Orange County company named The TriZetto Group, Inc.
  • In early 2008, Mr. Roosevelt conducted an arbitration on a patent license dispute for Allergan, Inc.
  • In the fall of 2008, Mr. Roosevelt conducted a Section 220 trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking books and records of XO Communications, Inc. on behalf of a minority shareholder.

Representative Cases

Business Litigation

Ingram Micro v. BigStore.com. Successfully defended Ingram Micro Inc. in antitrust and B&P Section 17200 litigation asserted by Chapter 11 debtor, The BigStore.com, in Orange County Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Roosevelt was also successful in defeating claims brought against Ingram Micro in the Orange County Superior Court by two of The Bigstore.com's founders seeking more than $30 million in damages, instead securing multi-million dollar judgments against those founders.

De La Cruz, et al. v. Athens Services, et al. Represented Athens Services in a nuisance action related to an Athena recycling facility in the City of Industry.

Johnny Rockets Group, Inc. v. Bloch. Represented Johnny Rockets in a dispute over a limited liability partnership agreement.

Western Digital Corp. v. Cirrus Logic, Inc. Represented Western Digital in a breach of contract case in Orange County Superior Court.

Callaway Golf Company v. Yash. Represented Callaway Golf Company in a breach of fiduciary duty action. The case was successfully arbitrated in San Diego.

Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. TrendWest. Represented Lehman Brothers in a dispute over a development agreement in Indio, California. The case was litigated in Orange County Superior Court and eventually settled following mediation.

Katz v. Avanir (formerly known as Lidak) Pharmaceuticals. Civil contempt case tried to successful guilty verdict in San Diego County Superior Court.

Intellectual Property

Allergan, Inc., et al. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., et al. Patent infringement action in which Allergan and others are the patentee plaintiffs. The suit concerns methods for growing eyelashes and is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Barr Laboratories v. Allergan, Inc. Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation in which Allergan is a defendant. The cases were brought in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to enter the market for a patented glaucoma treatment.

Broadcom, Inc. v. Emulex, Inc. Patent infringement action against Emulex pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

BHGV, LLC v. Inamed, Inc. and Allergan, Inc.  Dispute over technology license agreement, including the amount of royalties due and whether the agreement had been terminated. Our client, the defendant, asserted the agreement had been terminated, while plaintiff asserted $30 million in royalties were due and payable.  After a one-week arbitration, the arbitrator ruled in our client's favor, finding the client did have the right to terminate the agreement.

McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. TriZetto, Inc. Patent infringement action in which our client was the accused infringer. Summary judgment of noninfringement was obtained for our client on 15 of the 17 asserted claims. A summary judgment motion based on invalidity was then filed as to the two remaining claims, at which point the plaintiff agreed to settle and grant our client a license.

MacLeod v. Hewlett-Packard Company.  Patent infringement action in which the client was the alleged infringer. Action was settled favorably before trial.

Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Group Americas, Inc., dba Maxfli. Trade secret misappropriation and false advertising case, successfully tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in the client's favor.

Antitrust

In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation. Multidistrict class action and multiple "opt-out" direct purchaser actions involving alleged price-fixing and cartel behavior. Damages against the defendants sought in an amount in excess of $1 billion. Case was successfully mediated and settled.

Securities and Merger & Acquisition Litigation

The TriZetto Group, Inc. Defended TriZetto and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger. Case settled favorably and the transaction closed.

Ashworth, Inc. Defended Ashworth and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger.  Case settled favorably shortly after the lawsuit was filed and the transaction closed.

Emulex Corporation. Defended Emulex and the members of its Board of Directors in hostile takeover litigation brought by Broadcom and shareholder plaintiffs. The lawsuits alleged that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties by enacting certain defensive measures. Broadcom abandoned its takeover offer and dismissed its lawsuit shortly before trial. 

I-Flow Corporation. Defended I-Flow and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger.  Case settled favorably and the transaction closed.

Diedrich Coffee, Inc. Defended Diedrich and the members of its Board of Directors in merger and acquisition litigation claiming the Board failed to secure an adequate price, conducted an auction process that would not result in maximizing shareholder value, and failed to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the merger. Defeated motion for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery brought by the plaintiff.

Emulex Corporation. Defended Emulex and the members of its Board of Directors in derivative litigation alleging that the Company made false disclosures to inflate stock price. The litigation was stayed at the defendants' request.

Amerco Inc. Defended Amerco, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors in derivative litigation alleging self dealing by parent of U-Haul in connection with sale of stock to insiders to prevent change of control. Prevailed on a motion to dismiss.