Photo of Kelly Curtis

Kelly Curtis

Subscribe to Kelly Curtis's Posts

Kelly Curtis is an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department. She has experience in a variety of commercial litigation matters, advancing client interests in such areas as product liability, trade secret misappropriation, false advertising, sports, environmental remediation, and contract disputes. Kelly has prepared witnesses for trial and depositions, assisted in preparing cross examinations at trial, taken expert and fact witness depositions, written dispositive and appellate motions, and argued trial motions in federal court.

Kelly was part of the trial team representing Monsanto Company in Stephens v. Monsanto, a product liability action relating to the company’s weedkiller, Roundup, and its alleged link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After a five-month trial, the California jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims.

Additionally, she was part of the trial team that secured a unanimous defense verdict for Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), defeating a breach of contract claim in which a purported agent sought tens of millions of dollars in claimed commissions relating to retransmission royalties. Subsequently, the team successfully defended against the appeal of the jury verdict to the Ninth Circuit.

Kelly maintains an active pro bono practice, with an emphasis on immigration issues. Most recently, she successfully represented a client from Turkey who sought asylum in the U.S. based on his membership in the LGBT+ community.

While earning her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law, she worked for the Alliance for Children’s Rights, representing caregivers in foster care, guardianship, and adoption benefits matters. Prior to law school, Kelly earned a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, with a focus on International Relations.

Contact:Read more about Kelly Curtis

It is illegal under the Securities Exchange Act to make false or misleading statements to the investing public about material facts.  At the same time, corporations and their officers must be able to make statements about the company’s future plans, projections, and aspirations without fear of opening themselves up to…

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has survived yet another challenge in the federal courts. In a resounding 8-1 decision this Monday, April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that health insurance companies who suffered losses entering the new marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) were entitled to compensation for those losses.

California defendants in class actions should be wary of seeking a strategic advantage by litigating before seeking to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal held recently in Sprunk v. Prisma LLC  that a defendant in class action litigation can waive its right to seek arbitration against absent, unnamed class members by deciding not to compel arbitration against the named plaintiff within a reasonable timeframe.

It is not uncommon for parties to enter into agreements containing jury waiver provisions. However, enforcing such provisions in California courts may be a losing battle. California has a strong public policy in favor of the right to a trial by jury, and California courts will not enforce a jury waiver except under limited circumstances. The bottom line: unless an advance contractual jury waiver provides for resolution in a nonjudicial forum, like arbitration or binding mediation, it will not be enforced in state and federal courts located in California.