Eamon P. Joyce

Eamon has extensive experience representing clients in the United States Supreme Court. He also has substantial experience in the federal courts of appeals, the highest state courts and federal district courts, including oral arguments in appellate and trial courts. He has regularly represented parties in federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) proceedings and before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). His representative cases have included:

• Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington et al., 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012)
• Tang v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., 656 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2011)
• Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 U.S. (2011) (obtained plenary review on behalf of appellant in direct appeal from three-judge district court, and defended appellant on the merits against class action involving the availability and scope of injunctive relief in civil rights litigation)
• Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (obtained certiorari and represented petitioner on the merits in case involving interpretation of education statute; client ultimately prevailed in the Ninth Circuit upon remand under rules set forth by the Supreme Court)
• Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent, 552 U.S. 440 (2008) (per curiam) (represented petitioner on the merits in case involving federal preemption of state statutory provision allowing courts to assess fraud-on-the-federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA))
• Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (represented amici supporting prevailing respondent in case holding that the Medical Device Amendments to the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act expressly preempted plaintiffs’ state-law claims against the manufacturer of a Class III medical device to which FDA granted Premarket Approval)
• Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007)
• Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) (represented amicus in support of prevailing petitioner in case holding that the jury instructions at issue failed to properly convey the intent element of the charged crime)
• Norfolk S. Ry. v. James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (represented prevailing petitioner during cert. stage and on the merits in case addressing whether federal law governed the interpretation of certain maritime contracts and, if so, whether contractual liability limits on shippers extended to downstream carriers such as railroads)
• PAETEC Communications, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., Nos. 11-2268 et al. (3d Cir.) (represented amicus in telecommunications case in which the Federal Communications Commission subsequently filed an amicus brief adopting our client’s interpretation of statutes and regulations at issue; parties voluntarily dismissed case after oral argument)
• Verzani  v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 432 F. App’x 29 (2d Cir. 2011) & 387 F. App’x 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (represented prevailing defendant-appellee in cases affirming dismissal of putative class representative’s claims with prejudice and affirming denial of preliminary injunction where plaintiff sought to use state consumer protection law to enforce alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA))
• In re Louis Argento, No. 10-1317 (8th Cir. 2010) (represented prevailing respondent in obtaining denial of petition for mandamus challenging the district court’s order staying proceedings pending the JPML’s decision whether to transfer the case to a multidistrict litigation court)
• Burke v. Bayer AG, No. 08-3303, 2009 WL 3789927 (8th Cir. 2009) (represented prevailing defendant-appellee in case affirming order excluding plaintiffs’ expert and granting summary judgment for defendant)
• United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2006) (represented amicus supporting prevailing appellant in case involving criminality of prescribing narcotic pain medication)