John K. Crisham

John K. Crisham

Shareholder

John Crisham represents clients in high-stakes, sensitive, and complex civil litigation matters, in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. Before joining the firm, John was a litigation partner in the Washington, D.C. office of another prominent international law firm.

Concentrations

  • Complex civil and business litigation
  • Litigation of legal issues in state and federal appellate courts
  • Product liability and mass tort litigation

Capabilities

Experience

  • Representing Fortune 50 company in defense of complex commercial and employment class actions in state and federal courts nationwide.
  • Representing Fortune 50 company, at state trial and appellate court levels, in litigation challenging the constitutionality of regional transportation authority’s sales-and-use tax regime.
  • Secured dismissal for a Fortune 50 company of a Lanham Act false-advertising lawsuit
  • Secured dismissal for a Fortune 50 company of a putative class-action lawsuit asserting claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
  • Representing large, privately-held federal and state government contractor in a putative class-action litigation filed in federal court.
  • Represented former owner of petroleum refinery in two-and-a-half week arbitration hearing concerning claims in excess of $100 million arising from alleged corrosion-related failure of buried pipe, and subsequent release of petroleum product, at refinery. Case settled on a confidential basis prior to final ruling.
  • Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013): secured U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Hatch-Waxman Act preempts state-law tort claims targeting the design/composition of generic drug products.°
  • PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011): secured U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Hatch-Waxman Act preempts state-law tort claims challenging generic product warnings.°
  • Susan B. Anthony List, et al. v. Driehaus, et al., No. 13-193 (S. Ct. 2014 Term): amicus counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in case involving the appropriate ripeness standard for free speech pre-enforcement challenges brought under the First Amendment.°
  • Wagner v. Teva Pharms USA., Inc., 840 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 2016): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of state-law tort claims predicated on allegedly inadequate labeling and design on federal preemption grounds.°
  • Brinkley v. PLIVA, Inc., 772 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of state-law tort strict liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty claims on federal preemption grounds.°
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of multi-district litigation plaintiffs’ state-law tort claims on federal preemption grounds.°
  • In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 751 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of multi-district litigation plaintiffs’ state-law design-defect and other tort claims on grounds of federal preemption.°
  • Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s holding that plaintiffs’ state-law negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation and fraud claims all are preempted by federal law.°
  • Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2014 WL 2884870 (Del. Sup. Ct. May 30, 2014): secured dismissal, as a matter of Delaware forum non conveniens law, of four complaints asserting Delaware personal-injury claims that over one hundred Norwegian workers allegedly incurred while working on oil rigs and platforms in the North Sea.°
  • Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., et al., 2014 WL 117773 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014): secured dismissal of various state-law tort claims asserted against Class III medical device manufacturer as preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act.°
  • Henderson v. Palmer, 730 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2013): on behalf of pro bono client, secured reversal of district court's denial of habeas corpus petition, allowing client to assert his claims on the merits in the district court.°
  • Washington v. Medicis Pharms. Corp., 2013 WL 496063 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 7, 2013): on behalf of manufacturer of generic drug product, secured dismissal of various state-law tort claims premised on "innovator liability" theory.°
  • Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2010): secured reversal of $926 million judgment in favor of plaintiff class in nuclear environmental contamination case on a variety of grounds, including erroneous interpretation of the federal Price-Anderson Act establishing claims for nuclear-related liability, erroneous approach to preemption of state law by federal nuclear safety standards, and erroneous interpretation of the Colorado common law of trespass and nuisance.°
  • United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009): secured reversal and remand of client-specific rulings made by district court in $280 billion RICO/health care recovery action brought by the Department of Justice.°
  • Secured dismissal of dozens of state and federal cases at the motion-to-dismiss and summary-judgment stages on federal preemption grounds on behalf of Teva Pharmaceuticals, Baxter Healthcare, Ranbaxy Laboratories, and other prescription drug manufacturers.°
  • Counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals and related entities in nationwide products-liability litigation involving "unapproved" drugs.°
  • Counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals and related entities in complex multidistrict commercial litigation involving more than 20 cases brought by state Attorneys General alleging Medicaid/Medicare fraud and unfair competition based on purported inflation of published drug prices (AWP/WAC).°
  • Counsel for Baxter International and Teva Pharmaceuticals in major product-liability litigation involving anesthesia product.°

°The above representations were handled prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Recognition & Leadership

  • Member, William E. Doyle Inn of Court
  • Member, Colorado Bar Association
  • Member, Denver Bar Association
  • Member, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Health & Wellness Committee
  • Member, Tenth Circuit Historical Society

Credentials

Education
  • J.D., cum laude, Notre Dame Law School, 2005
    • Thomas J. White Scholar
    • Article Editor, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy
  • B.A., University of Notre Dame, 2000
Clerkships
  • Circuit Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Admissions
  • Colorado
  • District of Columbia
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia