Alan Sutton joined the Firm's Commercial Litigation Department in August 2007, after working for several years at a large D.C. law firm where he was a senior associate in the Commercial Trial and the Securities Litigation, Government Enforcement and White Collar Defense groups. Mr. Sutton's practice focuses on complex litigation. His expertise encompasses topics relating to commercial and real estate contract disputes, False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, procurement fraud, government and internal investigations, products liability and multidistrict litigation.
Mr. Sutton also serves as a reserve Major in the Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Air Force.
Case highlights include:
Holmes and Narver v. U.S. Won $27 million dollar judgment for client in Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding involving several construction contract claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
OAO Technology Solutions , Inc. v. Siebel Systems, Inc. Successfully defended Siebel in a breach of contract action relating to software licensing agreements. Defense resulted in a very favorable settlement for client.
International Paper Co. & Masonite Corp. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. Served as assistant trial counsel for International Paper Company and Masonite Corporation in action against more than twenty insurance companies seeking recovery for liabilities arising out of the manufacture and sale of hardboard siding products, including settlement of a nationwide class action. Following a thirteen week trial, the jury awarded clients $383 million in damages for amounts paid in settlement of the underlying cases. This verdict was the second largest rendered by a California jury in 2003 (as reported in the Daily Journal Extra) and was ranked fifth in the National Law Journal's "Top 100" verdicts in 2003.
In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig. Represented major oil refiners in a nationwide series of products liability cases claiming environmental damage resulting from the gasoline additive MTBE. These complex cases in state and federal courts have taken the form of multi-state class actions, matters consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and multi-party cases against state and municipal government entities.
Clark v. United States. Represented putative nationwide class of National Guard members seeking compensation for mandatory correspondence coursework. Obtained ruling from United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit resolving question of first impression in plaintiff's favor regarding whether there is a statutory right to such compensation. Successfully opposed motion for summary judgment by marshalling opposition brief from over 40 years of government regulations.
