Skip to main content

Greenberg Traurig &
Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

Working With EHI

We designed this client micro-site to help inform Enterprise Holdings, Inc. about our national practice capabilities, as we are interested in expanding our relationship into areas of core expertise. EHI has provided us with invaluable opportunities to learn about its business, recurring and potential litigation issues and the manner in which it manages important litigation. We hope to build on the relationships we have made and knowledge we obtained from the cases we have handled on behalf of EHI.

The information provided on this micro-site highlights our core competencies in the areas of need, commitment to diversity, innovative legal project management solutions, and the various ways we provide real value and service to our clients. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you in person and look forward to our meeting.

Our Litigation Practice

With over 600+ attorneys, GT’s Litigation team includes business-savvy, diverse litigators and trial-ready attorneys in virtually every major U.S. market. We try cases to verdict and often in the most challenging jurisdictions. Our experienced team of trial attorneys has handled over 600 trials and arbitrations in the last five years and over 1200 litigations in 39 jurisdictions in 2017. We go beyond just providing high-quality legal advice to improving our clients’ overall experience by delivering enhanced value, better industry insights and more predictability. We endeavor to take an early case assessment approach with the overarching objective of pursuing the best outcome in the most efficient manner. We operate from the context that there should be no surprises to our clients, and devise solutions to ensure we deliver on that expectation.

Representative Experience

Greenberg Traurig brings a sophisticated and coordinated approach to trying complex cases in diverse industries such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, energy, toxic mold, tobacco, and transportation. We have been trailblazers on the cutting edge of some of the most high-profile cases in the country and possess deep knowledge and experience in both regulated and non-regulated industries. Not only do our attorneys provide powerful defense in litigation, but we also proactively partner with our clients to develop liability prevention programs to identify and correct potentially devastating practices that may lead to litigation. We develop strategies that are custom-fit to each client’s needs and unique situation, be it a single plaintiff matter or mass tort. Harnessing our breadth of experience in cases of all kinds in venues across the United States and internationally allows us to take powerful and cost-effective action through flexible and client-centered teamwork.

  • Represented an automobile manufacturer as national counsel for high exposure personal injury cases.
  • Served as lead counsel to Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, LTD. in defense of an alleged catastrophic tire defect case pending in Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit; GT has been selected to represent Goodyear in all such cases in North Florida courts.
  • Defended Husky, Inc. against personal injury and wrongful death claims involving allegations of defects in the design and manufacture of plastic injection molding machines; all claims handled by our team have resulted in dismissals for the client before trial, including summary judgment and voluntary dismissal.
  • Represented Mestek, Inc. in the resolution of multi-year, multimillion dollar personal injury and property damage litigation relating to the alleged release of chlorinated solvents into the drinking water of the residential area surrounding a client facility
  • Secured a defense verdict for HDR Engineering, Inc. after an almost four-week trial in Monroe County (FL) Circuit Court. Our client was one of five defendants sued in connection with a 2010 accident that resulted in injuries to a motorcyclist who hit a concrete valve cover associated with a water transmission main in the median of the Overseas Highway in Key Largo, Florida. Approximately 30 witnesses were called during the trial including both fact and experts related to the medical, engineering and construction issues in the case. The jury returned a complete defense verdict for all defendants after a demand at trial of approximately $14.5 million.
  • Secured the dismissal with prejudice on behalf of Orange Lake Country Club, four other firm clients, and fourteen other defendants, including the State of Florida and the Brevard County School Board, of a fifteen count, 80-page Complaint alleging tort, contract, and statutory claims. In addition, they obtained an order from the Brevard County Circuit Court, declaring the plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant under Florida law, which bars him from initiating any further litigation in that Circuit without receiving preclearance to do so from the court.
  • Representation of Lockheed Martin in a case where 43 plaintiffs have filed claims against five defendants, including our client, seeking damages arising out of groundwater contamination in the unincorporated town of Wedron, Illinois. The plaintiffs assert claims of negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, permanent trespass, continuing trespass, private nuisance, fraudulent concealment, wrongful death and loss of consortium, alleging that they have incurred personal injury and property damage as a result of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) contamination in their residential well water. On behalf of Lockheed Martin, Greenberg Traurig has taken the lead in the defense of the case to date, along with co-defendant Wedron Silica Co., represented by Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Plaintiffs seek in excess of $40 million. Following various motions to dismiss plaintiff’s pleadings, the court has dismissed with prejudice the wrongful death and fraudulent concealment claims. The matter is currently proceeding through discovery.
  • Represented Sony Electronics and Qualcomm in a series of actions in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have negligently and fraudulently endangered consumers by providing wireless telephones that emit unsafe levels of radio frequency radiation; the plaintiffs in these actions allege that they have been diagnosed with brain cancer as a result of their exposure to radio frequency radiation; they seek compensatory and consequential damages for their injuries; in August 2007, Judge Cheryl Long of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted
  • Represented an American supermarket chain in a suit by a plaintiff who was chasing a shopping cart and tripped and fell due to "dilapidated and deteriorated conditions" in the pavement in the parking lot adjacent to our client's store. She had previously fallen on a slate sidewalk in June 2009 and had knee replacement surgery in April 2011. This case is ongoing.
  • Representation of a multinational telecommunications corporation in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference claims. The eight-member jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the client, not only dismissing all of plaintiff's claims, but also finding in favor of the client on its counterclaims, awarding them more than $35,000 in damages. The plaintiff appealed and Greenberg Traurig represented the company in that proceeding. Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for certification, which was denied in December 2014. Her motion for reconsideration of that denial is now pending.

Greenberg Traurig's Commercial Litigation Practice is skilled in business dispute litigation and has wide-ranging experience in corporate governance and compliance and with the full valuation, accounting, and ethical issues which typically arise in business disputes. Our team comprises experienced trial lawyers who understand broad business implications and can draw on the firm's multidisciplinary teams in industries such as transportation, financial services, accounting, insurance, real estate, and entertainment to devise creative and efficient strategies.

  • Represented an automobile manufacturer and acted as co‐lead trial counsel in four‐week jury trial in federal court in Chicago. The case arose from a rollover accident in which two men died and one suffered severe brain damage and paralysis. The plaintiffs claimed damages in excess of $23 million on the asserted basis that the design of a minivan was defective for allegedly being unreasonably prone to roll over on the road when put into an emergency maneuver at highway speeds. The case resulted in a defense verdict and was identified by The National Law Journal as one of the top 15 defense verdicts of 1999.
  • Represented an automobile finance company in a putative nationwide class action alleging claims of consumer fraud, common law fraud and unjust enrichment relating to the alleged non‐disclosure of “total loss” claims paid on vehicles that were repossessed and resold. On appeal, we obtained affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice by advocating the inclusion of knowledge as an element to each of the plaintiffs’ proposed claims, and demonstrating the plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy their pleading obligations with respect to the element of knowledge.
  • Represented lessor in class action brought by automobile lessees challenging the disclosure and reasonableness of early termination charges in automobile lease under the federal Consumer Leasing Act.  Won dismissal of disclosure claims and summary judgment on counterclaim against the class representative.  Kedziora v. Citicorp National Services, Inc. (N.D. Il. & 7th Circuit).
  • Represented SGS Automotive, an automotive testing company, and led the trial team in a three‐week trial that resulted in a defense verdict dismissing $150 million consumer class action by 3.5 million car owners who had alleged company failed to test seat belts properly.
  • Represented American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in its defense of a multidistrict litigation case out of Maryland. Additionally, we have represented American Honda in numerous consumer litigation cases.
  • Represented General Motors and Suzuki Motor Corporation in a products liability action pending in Palm Beach County.  
  • Represented a specialty tractor (mule) manufacturer as co-lead trial counsel in a catastrophic injury products liability action brought in Miami state court by a longshoreman who suffered blindness, brain damage and other injuries. Plaintiffs alleged design defects. The case settled four days into the jury trial. 
  • Represented an automobile manufacturer in a jury trial in Illinois state court in Cook County. The plaintiffs claimed that the vehicle's steering system was defective and caused a high-speed crash that seriously injured the driver and her two children. The trial resulted in a defense verdict. 
  • Representation of a Korean automobile manufacturer as coordinating discovery counsel in connection with products liability cases alleging improper design of gas tank and fuel system causing fire. The cases are currently pending in Texas and California. Greenberg Traurig’s role has been to coordinate the preservation, collection and review of materials in connection with these cases to ensure that the responses are consistent across all of the defense firms. 
  • Representation of Allegiant Air, LLC in a litigation that arose from claims that Allegiant breached its contract of carriage with customers by charging an electronic usage fee for each flight segment booked online or by telephone. Plaintiff alleged that the charge violated contractual terms incorporating federal regulations regarding limitations on the amount and type of non-regulatory fees an airline may charge and the relationship between said fees and the actual cost of the underlying service provided. The type of fee and contractual language at issue is used by virtually every US airline. We successfully moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
  • Acted as lead counsel for dozens of cases for a multinational automaker alleging breach of warranties regarding transmissions and diesel engines. These are highly contested, expert-intensive cases that have been litigated for years. This work has included multiple month-long jury trials this year in California state courts. The GT team is gearing up for as many as two dozen such jury trials in the next year all over the state of California. GT was asked to and has stepped into this ongoing litigation and is serving as lead trial counsel in many of the California trials. GT is taking a lead and significant role in overall strategy, trial strategy, and development of overarching defenses in a series of significant cases and trials.
  • Represented Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. against a complaint alleging violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 based upon allegations including: misrepresentations and omissions in several of the Company’s proxy statements; breach of their fiduciary duty; waste of corporate assets; and, unjust enrichment. The Complaint seeks monetary damages, improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, an accounting from Defendants of the damages allegedly caused by them and the improper amounts the Defendants allegedly obtained, and punitive damages. The parties are currently engaged in mediation. Obtained favorable settlement for client on eve of trial after summary judgment arguments.
  • Represented an American supermarket chain in a suit by the Class Group of delivery personnel claiming they were entitled to tips and/or gratuities under the NYLL §196-d. Sues under CPLR Article 9. The class claims the tips and gratuities were unlawfully retained by the client. They also claim that the delivery charge is a gratuity within the meaning of the NYLL; whether the client retained the class members gratuity; whether the client unlawfully retained plaintiff and the class members gratuities; whether the client is liable for damages; and whether the client should be enjoined from such violations of the NYLL. The customers are not given an opportunity to add gratuity to the delivery charges and the client retains 100% of the delivery charges. The client misled its customers into believing the delivery charge is a gratuity. The client denies all alleged allegations. The class action suit is ongoing.
  • Greenberg Traurig represents McDonald’s in significant franchise dispute in New Jersey involving claims of age discrimination and violation of the franchise laws. The case involves a long-time franchisee who is seeking to avoid his rebuilding and remodeling obligations for six different franchised restaurants and involves important issues under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act.
  • GT is representing Microsoft in claims brought against it in a lawsuit alleging that Team Express was fraudulently induced to purchase Microsoft’s Dynamics AX software. Team Express, which is claiming $50+ million in damages, claims that Microsoft misrepresented the capabilities of the software, and thus, caused Team Express’s legacy enterprise software to fail at the go-live date, preventing it from fulfilling orders and costing it customer goodwill, and ultimately forcing it into bankruptcy. The trial will take place in either Q4 of 2018 or Q1 of 2019 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
  • Represented Airport concessionaire Areas USA, Inc. in dispute over subconcessionaire’s refusal to build-out concession space in the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. The concessionaire had sublet a portion of its leased space to the defendants, who ultimately refused to honor their subcontract and build out the concession space. When the concessionaire sued, the defendants responded with a counterclaim for fraud, claiming that they had been misled as to the difficulties and costs associated with the build-out. After hotly contested litigation, the case ultimately settled several days before trial, with the defendant agreeing to build out and operate the concession space, and commence paying rent according to terms agreed upon in the settlement.
  • Represented Avis Rent A Car System and Budget Rent A Car System in two nationwide putative class actions alleging imposition of hidden surcharges for rewards programs offered in connection with rental car Contracts.
  • Represented Lorillard Tobacco Company in the appeal that led to the reversal of a $145 billion judgment, the largest damage award in American legal history, on behalf of the five largest tobacco companies in the United States. As one of Lorillard’s national counsel, we have defended the company in a multitude of products liability cases, in multiple jurisdictions, including class action cases, individual cases, third-party payer cases and foreign sovereign claims.
  • Representation of an American multinational retail corporation against a putative class action claiming it falsely advertised that its stores offer eye exams done by “independent” optometrists. Specifically, the Complaint alleges the corporation ran afoul of Sections 655 and 2556 of the California Business & Professions Code. As such, plaintiff sought relief under various California Consumers protection statutes. The lower court dismissed on lack of standing for failing to state a traceable injury. While the Ninth Circuit agreed, in part, it claimed said dismissal should have been without prejudice and therefore, reversed and vacated judgment offering claimant the opportunity to amend and re-file.
  • Represented an American supermarket chain in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of all individuals who redeemed coupons at a store in Illinois and were charged sales tax based on the price prior to the discount resulting from use of the coupon where the coupon did not require the consumer to bear the corporation’s tax liability. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, concluding that plaintiff’s base allegations on “information and belief” are deficient. Following the dismissal of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiff agreed to settle his individual claim for a minimal amount. On October 14, 2015, plaintiff’s individual claims were dismissed with prejudice.
  • Defending E*Trade in a UCL class action brought by putative class of people with car/RV loans whose vehicles were repossessed; case alleges violation of California’s Rees-Levering Act (concerning required content of notices of repossession and deficiencies on auto loans) as a predicate for UCL claim.
  • Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to obtain class certification of a “hybrid” class and collective action on behalf of a group of former assistant store managers in Pennsylvania for a Fortune 50 Retailer. They alleged that our client changed job titles of workers, shifting some to management level, so that overtime wages would not be paid. The proposed class would have included thousands of members. Our team obtained a published decision in the Western District of Pennsylvania denying that certification. We also are counsel to the retailer in two other pending class actions in New Jersey raising similar issues.
  • Representation of Marriott Ownership Resorts and several affiliates which have been named as defendants in this putative class action that involves timeshare resorts in 44 cities in 11 states and several hundred thousand potential class members. A Colorado Federal Magistrate judge partly granted a sanctions motion brought by timeshare owners against the law firm's client, Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. The judge concluded that the company made a mistake when it failed to hand over key evidence in the mass action claiming it caused the owners' property values to plummet.
  • Representation of Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. against challenges of Marriott’s launch of the Points-based program, asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of state consumer protection and timeshare statutes. In this class action filed in arbitration, GT secured the dismissal of almost every claim and allegation made by plaintiffs, leaving them with a liability theory based only on the deletion of two resorts. With plaintiffs’ damage claims eviscerated, MVWC then settled the case with nominal payment to the two individual plaintiffs.
  • Representation of multinational engineering company WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff in its receipt of an award of a contract for the Hillsborough Transportation Project based upon variations in sales tax rates. The investigation was conducted by the Hillsborough County Sherriff’s Department at the request of the Hillsborough County Commission. The investigation focused on conduct of a consultant to WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff in her contacts with the county commission and members of the Go Hillsborough project. The investigation was completed with no finding of any wrongdoing by WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Greenberg Traurig’s Insurance Defense team is skilled in handling defense and coverage cases spanning a full spectrum of insurance claims and policy types. As experienced trial attorneys, we are able to develop and deliver strategic and creative alternatives to litigation, as well as see a matter through to trial when appropriate. Our team focuses on swift, early case evaluations, summary judgment motions, the right time to settle, and trials. We skillfully handle first and third-party coverages and represent insurance companies in disputes with homeowners and commercial insureds with losses claimed to be caused by windstorm, hurricane, sinkhole, flood, water leaks or mitigation, fire, arson, burglary, theft, vandalism, mold, and collapse.

  • Represented Zenith Insurance Company in a 16-year-old contract dispute case wherein GT recovered final judgments totaling nearly $2.8 million. Following a six-day jury trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, the jury found in Zenith’s favor on all of the claims brought against it by Farm Stores and also found in favor of Zenith on its counterclaim for damages from a variety of Farm Stores related entities. The damages represent money owed for workers’ compensation insurance coverage provided to several related entities that did business as “Farm Stores” from 1993 to 1997.
  • Defended Combined Insurance Co. of America against a proposed class action brought in the Northern District of Illinois alleging breach of contract for failing to keep the plaintiff’s personally identifiable information private. The court dismissed all ten claims and denied class certification, concluding that identity theft is a highly personalized crime. Affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.
  • Secured dismissal (affirmed on appeal) of a series of putative class actions and cases consolidated in MDL proceeding for First American Financial Company. The class action alleged price fixing and challenged the heart of the title insurance industry. A loss in any of these cases would have had a significant adverse effect on the company. This litigation represented a fundamental effort to challenge insurance regulation nationwide by requiring “effective regulation” where the law currently requires only filing in compliance with a state regulatory scheme.
  • Defended First American Title Insurance Co. in an antitrust and UCL action alleging unlawful payments for referral of title insurance business by putative class of all California residential title insurance purchasers. Eliminated all antitrust claims on motions to dismiss; litigating dispositive motions and class certification on remaining UCL claim.
  • Represented Liberty Mutual in a unanimous decision from the Appellate Division regarding a challenge to a state law affecting worker compensation insurance policies. The Appellate Division held that the statute was impermissibly retroactive, reversed the trial court’s decision dismissing the complaint, and ordered entry of judgment in Liberty Mutual’s favor declaring the challenged statute unconstitutional.
  • Represented Teachers Insurance Annuity Association (TIAA-CREF), a large financial services firm, in a nationwide class and collective action alleging off-the-clock claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California state law brought by contingent workers against their employers and the company to which they were assigned. After successfully forcing the plaintiffs to re-plead their claims and taking aggressive discovery, we were able to settle the entire action before the class certification stage, pending approval by the Court. Simultaneously, we worked closely with our client to identify and implement best practices in connection with timekeeping, payroll, and other wage-hour issues to limit the risk of additional, copycat litigation.
  • Represented a major insurance Company that was sued by a plaintiff who had recovered $9 million in a default judgment against the employer of the plaintiff's deceased spouse. The federal district court in which the action was brought entered summary judgment for the client and the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. After briefing and oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit certified dispositive questions of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court for resolution. In the December 2014 decision, the Florida Supreme Court clarified Florida law on workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy for employee claims and also ruled that a workers' compensation settlement agreement precludes recovery against an employer's compensation insurer in a tort action. Following the Florida Supreme Court's opinion, the Eleventh Circuit thereafter upheld the summary judgment for the client.
  • Represented a title insurance company in securing dismissal (affirmed on appeal) of a series of putative class actions and cases consolidated in MDL proceeding. The class action alleged price fixing and challenging the heart of the title insurance industry. A loss in any of these cases would have had a significant adverse effect on the company. This litigation represented a fundamental effort to challenge insurance regulation nationwide by requiring “effective regulation” where the law currently requires only filing in compliance with a state regulatory scheme.
  • Represented a U.S. leading reinsurance company in employment litigations ranging from discrimination claims to executive compensation disputes, as well as providing day-to-day counselling and advice. One such matter involved successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing all counts of ERISA lawsuit where plaintiff sought to recover benefits allegedly promised orally.
  • Defended Sunbeam Corporation in a lawsuit for declaratory judgment to establish insurance coverage under a products liability insurance policy issued by a Taiwan-based insurer; our team employed a creative strategy to establish jurisdiction in the United States, which was accepted by the U. S. District Court; the insurer reimbursed our client for all fees and settlement amounts in California.

Greenberg Traurig’s Labor & Employment Group provides national and international corporations with strategic legal advice on all matters concerning the employment relationship. With over 150 practitioners around the globe, we offer national and international organizations strategic and practical legal services that are focused on maximizing human resource potential. Our team is regularly called upon to handle complex, bet-the-company cases and has taken three cases to the U.S. Supreme Court within the last 10 years. We have extensive and wide-ranging experience in class and collective litigation, having handled over 100 such cases in the last three years alone. Additionally, we have experience supporting clients in maintaining positive labor relations as it has in-depth experience structuring corporate transactions aimed at maximizing managerial flexibility and labor efficiency, negotiating collective bargaining agreements, trying labor arbitrations throughout the county, and assisting employers to lead and manage in ways that best fir their cultures.

  • Represented national automotive company in putative nationwide collective action under the FLSA seeking overtime compensation allegedly due and owing as a result of employer’s alleged misclassification of Service Managers as exempt employees.  (Middle District of Florida) 
  • Representing Caesar's Entertainment Corporation in the consolidation of a large amount of its total work for properties west of the Mississippi River at GT in employment law, traditional labor law, executive contracts, employee benefits, immigration, and general HR contracts. This is a major representation covering scores of properties nationwide employing over 50,000 employees, and includes a large and complex docket of cases requiring close coordination and collaboration with Caesars’ talented in-house lawyers in the Caesars Legal Department.
  • Represented a national supermarket chain wherein GT obtained a major ERISA litigation victory for a The Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of a class action lawsuit alleging the fiduciaries of our client’s 401(k) had failed in their duties by maintaining a company stock plan among possible investment choices. Plaintiffs alleged that certain regulator allegations and resolutions relating to labels that should have triggered the cessation of the company stock offering in the 401(k) plan. The Court ruled that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an action that a prudent fiduciary in similar circumstances would have taken that did more benefit than harm to the plan, and dismissed with prejudice.
  • Obtained summary judgement for CVS Rx Services, Inc. in a putative Rule 23 class action under California Labor Code and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Former pharmaceutical employees seeking payment for alleged unpaid time associated with mandatory training filed the case. Upon filing, CVS moved to compel the case to individual arbitration, after which plaintiffs have amended the case twice to avoid dismissal in court. Ultimately, named plaintiffs waived any entitlement to back wages in order to pursue case in court under PAGA. The case is significant due to the argument we raised that held named plaintiffs, who intentionally waived any entitlement to back wages, are not aggrieved employees under PAGA and thus lack standing to sue.
  • GT is representing Mauser in this nationwide FLSA collective action and Ohio state law class action. Plaintiff alleges that Mauser unlawfully deducts 30 minutes from each employees time for lunch even if the employee works through lunch, unlawfully rounds down time entries, and engages in other improper time keeping practices. The lawsuit was filed in 2018 and discovery has just begun on the initial conditional certification issue. Plaintiff has not yet provided an estimate for damages.
  • Represented Central Parking Systems in a putative nationwide collective action under the FLSA and state-wide class action under the New York Labor Law seeking overtime compensation allegedly due and owing as a result of employer’s alleged misclassification of Assistant Garage Managers as exempt employees.
  • Representation of Michaels Stores in a case involving claims of discrimination, harassment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under federal and Florida law, including retaliatory discharge under Florida's workers’ compensation statute. The plaintiff was terminated less than 30 days after filing a workers’ compensation claim, which is generally sufficient to show temporal proximity, but Michaels successfully showed its termination decision was unrelated to the protected activity. The plaintiff appealed, and Michaels maintained its position.
  • Representing Hornblower New York, Inc. ("HNY"), an affiliate of Hornblower Cruises & Events, Inc., in a visionary transformative transportation project for the New York City metropolitan area. This involves a major expansion of existing service, acquisition of existing service lines, construction of a new fleet of vessels, and coordination with bus and subway lines currently and in the future. GT negotiated with the NY EDC to secure procurement and with organized labor to staff the system and provide support in the political and regulatory arena. Ultimately the vote was against the union.
  • Represented Hornblower Yachts LLC in defense of wage and hour class action matter on behalf of all non-exempt employees in California, which totaled nearly 1600 current and former employees. Plaintiff alleged numerous wage and hour violations including, failure to pay overtime, wage statement violations, failure to reimburse for business expenses, reporting time pay penalties, and for remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The team crafted the creative strategy of informal exchange of information prior to class certification, which forced plaintiff to settle matter on behalf of fewer than 80 individuals in one job category.
  • GT represents Vornado Realty Trust and its subsidiaries Building Maintenance Service LLC and Metal-Brite Service Company in all aspects of labor and employment litigation, labor negotiation and contract administration and transactional matters in the labor perspective. We have successfully handled numerous arbitrations, employment discrimination matters and labor disputes. In addition, we have regularly provided labor and ERISA counsel on both purchase and sale transactions and refinancing deals. More recently we have represented Vornado in connection with Americans with Disabilities Act access litigation.
  • Represented Wendy’s against a putative class brought by current and former exempt employees seeking unpaid wages, and civil and statutory penalties for alleged wage and hour violations; GT obtained dismissal of class and dismissal of representative PAGA claim on ground that the "notice" provided to the State was insufficient notice to exhaust the preconditions to filing suit, and ruling of first impression that Labor Code section 1174 does not create a private right of action.
  • Representation of an American supermarket chain against an ERISA class action brought by a former employee on behalf of a putative class of all current and former employees who participated in the company’s 401(k) plan. Plaintiff alleged that the executives in charge of managing that plan breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to invest in company stock despite their alleged knowledge of non-public company information that could affect the stock’s price. In September 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Texas federal court dismissal on the basis that plaintiff failed to allege an alternative action that the company’s fiduciaries --at the time-- could have taken. This ruling will have a severe, negative impact on a plaintiff’s ability to plead an ERISA claim that could withstand a motion to dismiss.
  • Representation of RVR, Inc. and its subsidiaries in connection with the sale by the shareholders of RVR, Inc. of their shares to a newly-formed employee stock ownership trust, the RVR Employee Stock Ownership Trust, established pursuant to the RVR Employee Stock Ownership Plan, in exchange for $105 million in cash.

Awards & Accolades

GT’s dedication to client service is evidenced by our attorney and practice awards and accolades. Recent recognition includes:

As we further develop our relationship with EHI, we look forward to introducing you to new attorneys across our platform and discussing with you in greater detail the ways in which we plan to partner with EHI to further expand our engagement, provide greater efficiencies, and deliver increased value.

Alternative Fee Arrangements

GT is a leader in creating and implementing alternative fee arrangements that provide value for our clients. Nearly 20% of GT’s work annually is handled under alternative fee arrangements, representing over 1,000 clients in all industries. We have no preordained policy that must be followed. GT gives our shareholders ultimate flexibility to negotiate equitable and reasonable fee arrangements designed to meet a client’s needs and objectives for specific matters. We understand that one size does not fit all. We work closely with our clients on these arrangements to help predict and reduce overall legal spend.

From our experience, these types of arrangements are best utilized when they are focused on specific types of matters or objectives. The best and most effective arrangements require input from the client; the open sharing of information; and a clear understanding of, and alignment with, the client’s business objectives. In light of this, we have provided a brief sample of approaches we have used with various clients that we can adapt to be of value in reducing and controlling legal spend.

Fixed Fee Arrangements

Fixed fee arrangements can be highly beneficial to clients in that they can assist in fostering a level of predictability in an engagement, while creating a baseline for forecasting. These approaches can range from the utilization of fixed fees for handling a portfolio of routine matters (e.g., single plaintiff/ low-risk claims; routine IP filings) to the implementation of fixed fees for certain phases of more complex matters (e.g., complex litigation, potentially including certain types of class actions).

  • Fixed fee for entire matter: A set fee is charged for a pre-determined scope of the engagement.  This arrangement is best suited for routine or highly predictable matters. 
  • Fixed fee for specific phases of an engagement: For more complex matters, the engagement is broken into phases each with its own fixed fee.  Typical matters would include complex commercial litigation and large real estate or corporate transactions.
  • Portfolio Pricing: For consistent, recurring matters, typically within a legal specialty, a fixed fee per matter or retainer may be charged to handle a specific volume of matters annually.  Examples include routine employment litigation and charges; patent, trademark and copyright prosecution; visa applications; etc.
  • Collar Arrangement: When the client and GT agree that there may be a high level of uncertainty in regard to the range of possible activity in a matter, or a high level of variability in a portfolio of matters, a collar arrangement may be used to manage the risk.  In this situation a flat fee will be set, and a range of acceptable variation above or below the flat fee is established.  If actual activity is below the established range, the client receives a rebate or credit, and if actual activity is above the established range, the fee is adjusted.

 Back to Top