Photo of Henrique Carneiro

Henrique Carneiro

Subscribe to Henrique Carneiro's Posts

Henrique Carneiro is a Litigation Associate in the Firm’s New York office.

Henrique is a member of the firm’s Antitrust Litigation Practice Group. He represents large clients in several complex antitrust litigation matters spanning the pharmaceutical, agriculture, energy, and sports industries. Most recently, he was a member of the trial team that secured a defense jury verdict on behalf of Sanderson Farms in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, a price-fixing case involving direct-purchaser damages claims in excess of $7 billion.

Henrique is also a member of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. He has argued before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and has represented clients in bankruptcy, administrative law, and criminal appeals in several federal appellate courts.

Henrique earned his J.D. from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in 2022. Henrique is also a jazz trumpet player. He graduated from The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music in 2018 and has performed at various venues in New York City, including Jazz at Lincoln Center.

Contact:Read more about Henrique Carneiro

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), was enacted to make federal courts the primary venue for class action litigation. It did so by modifying the usual jurisdictional requirements of the diversity jurisdiction statute. Under CAFA, federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over state law class actions originally filed in state court so long as there is “minimal” rather than “complete” diversity, and the amount in controversy is greater than $5 million.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion yesterday in Gonzalez v. Google, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment— which had held that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – and remanded it. But the Court’s opinion entirely skirted a highly-anticipated issue: whether Section 230 does, in fact, shelter as much activity as courts have held to date.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in cases that will have extensive implications for online platforms, and, more broadly, for internet speech across the board. Gonzalez v. Google, in particular, may result in a first-of-its-kind clarification of the scope of 47 U.S.C. § 230.