Photo of Kelly Curtis

Kelly Curtis

Subscribe to Kelly Curtis's Posts

Kelly Curtis is a senior counsel in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust, Mass Torts & Product Liability and Trials Groups. She has experience in a variety of commercial litigation matters, advancing client interests in product liability, antitrust, trade secret misappropriation, false advertising, sports, environmental remediation and contract disputes. Kelly has prepared witnesses for trial and depositions, prepared direct and cross examinations at trial, taken expert and fact witness depositions, written dispositive and appellate motions, and argued trial motions.

Kelly has played a pivotal role in trial teams across both state and federal courts in recent years. In 2021, she was part of the team defending Monsanto in a product liability case related 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 full defense verdict on all claims. The following year, Kelly helped secure another complete defense verdict for Monsanto in a multi-plaintiff trial in Missouri. She also played a key role in securing a unanimous defense verdict for the 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, Kelly and 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. She has successfully represented multiple clients, both children and adults, from the initial filing of their application for relief to the securement of a Green Card. Kelly has secured asylum for several clients, including individuals who were attacked, tortured and/or imprisoned by the state police apparatus due to their political affiliations as well as a man fleeing persecution based on his membership in the LGBTQ+ 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.

Contact:Read more about Kelly Curtis

The California legislature’s efforts to streamline the discovery process, promote transparency and fairness in civil proceedings, and reduce discovery abuse began in 2019, when California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 2016.090 was amended to provide for initial disclosures, but only if the parties stipulated to such an exchange. Unsurprisingly, the rule change had little impact, as very few parties agreed to make the exchange. In 2023, legislation was passed to make the exchange potentially involuntary—now every party to the action must make initial disclosures so long as any other party demands them. 

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.