Craig E.Stewart

Partner

San Francisco + 1.415.875.5714

Contact

Partager

Craig Stewart has orally argued dozens of appeals in federal and state courts, including the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court, particularly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has won important victories in high-profile matters across a broad spectrum of subject matter areas, including antitrust, employment, international human rights, false advertising, environmental law, land use, constitutional claims, mass torts, and contract disputes. His clients in these cases include such major corporations as Apple, AT&T, Chevron, Experian, and Procter & Gamble.

In the trial court, his practice focuses on complex business litigation, primarily antitrust and unfair business practice claims. He has litigated motions to dismiss, class certification, and summary judgment motions and other significant motions in major litigation. His recent experience includes defending price-fixing and monopolization cases under state and federal laws, defending unfair business practice claims under California's Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and defending consumer class actions alleging false advertising.

Craig's pro bono experience includes representing: asylum applicants, victims of domestic violence, a parolee in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal challenging conditions of his parole, a fair housing organization that successfully challenged discriminatory rental practices, and an inmate who obtained a federal court injunction against a restrictive prison mail policy.

Expérience

  • Magellan resolves crude oil monopolization litigationJones Day's client Magellan Midstream Partners successfully defended a Texas state court monopolization action brought by a crude oil transportation and storage provider rival in Texas, which alleged that Magellan, a subsidiary of ONEOK, unlawfully maintained a monopoly in transportation and storage markets by excluding the rival from Magellan's pipeline distribution system in Houston.
  • Google defeats antitrust class action alleging monopolization of markets for digital mapping servicesOn behalf of Google LLC, Jones Day won dismissal of a putative antitrust class action alleging unlawful tying and monopolistic conduct involving Google Maps, securing dismissal without leave to amend at the pleading stage.
  • Tesoro wins summary judgment dismissing two consolidated antitrust class actionsAs lead counsel of Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, a subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Jones Day won summary judgment in two consolidated antitrust class actions in which gasoline stations and consumers sought a combined $72 billion in treble damages.
  • Sutter Health wins complete defense verdict in landmark antitrust class actionJones Day won a complete defense jury verdict for Sutter Health in a landmark antitrust class action seeking $1.2 billion in treble damages.
  • Wabtec defeats prevailing wage litigation in California Supreme CourtIn a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones Day’s client, Wabtec Corporation, concluding that publicly funded work performed on rolling stock, such as a train, is not a “public work” subject to the payment of prevailing wages.
  • Pretrial detainee alleging excessive force and inadequate medical care by state officials obtains Ninth Circuit reversalThe Ninth Circuit appointed Jones Day associate, Justin Beck, to represent Donallen McFarlin, a pretrial detainee whose excessive force and inadequate medical care claims had been dismissed in the district court.
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al., files amici curiae in support of InstacartJones Day represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association, Bay Area Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and the Valley Industry Commerce Association as amici curiae, in support of Instacart.
  • Consumer products company defends lawsuit claiming marine plastic pollutionJones Day is defending a consumer products company in a lawsuit alleging the client and several other companies named as defendants, are responsible for marine plastic pollution because they (1) use plastic packaging rather than more environmentally friendly and sustainable materials and (2) misrepresent in their labeling and advertising that their packaging is recyclable when (they allege) it is not because of the lack of adequate recycling facilities.
  • Chevron defeats ATA and ATS claims brought by 298 plaintiffs relating to terrorist attacks in IsraelChevron Corporation, represented by Jones Day, defeated claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act ("ATA") and Alien Tort Statute ("ATS") brought by 298 plaintiffs who sought to hold Chevron responsible for injuries sustained in terrorist attacks in Israel between November 2000 and April 2002.
  • Procter & Gamble defeats class certification in misbranding actionJones Day obtained complete denial of class certification in a putative consumer class action brought against The Procter & Gamble Company in which the plaintiffs alleged that the labeling of Pringles potato crisps is false and misleading.
  • Chevron defends against lawsuit relating to accidental fire at California refineryJones Day represented Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. in defense of a lawsuit filed by the City of Richmond relating to an accidental fire that occurred at CUSA's Richmond (California) refinery in August 2012.
  • Chevron summary judgment win affirmed by California Court of Appeal in California FEHA age discrimination caseThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment ruling won by Jones Day on behalf of Chevron Products Company and Chevron Corporation in an age discrimination case brought by a former contractor of Chevron.
  • Chevron defeats class action relating to offshore gas well blowoutJones Day successfully represented Chevron Corporation in a class action lawsuit originally brought by 65,000 Nigerians seeking $5 billion on the claim that a natural gas well blowout six miles offshore caused widespread health and fishing impacts to an area roughly the size of New Jersey.
  • National retailer defends consumer class action surrounding allegations related to farming practices for shrimpJones Day is defending a national retailer against consumer class action litigation in which plaintiffs allege that the retailer sold shrimp that were farmed using slave labor.
  • Intuit obtains dismissal of antitrust lawsuit surrounding bilateral agreement regarding recruiting practicesJones Day client Intuit Inc. obtained dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Intuit and co-defendant eBay Inc. agreed not to solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of federal and California antitrust laws.
  • Sony settles antitrust class action involving employee compensationJones Day defended Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and settled an antitrust class action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of current and former employees of several film animation companies alleging the defendants entered into a conspiracy to suppress employee compensation through non-solicitation agreements and sharing compensation information.
  • National assisted living facility company defends putative class action lawsuit over advertising regarding care assessmentsJones Day is defending a national assisted living facility company in a class action lawsuit concerning how care assessments are used in setting and monitoring staffing at its 35 California communities.
  • Millennium Laboratories wins Ninth Circuit reversal in trade dress and unfair competition litigationJones Day won a reversal of summary judgment for Millennium Laboratories, Inc. in a Ninth Circuit appeal of a trade dress and unfair competition dispute.
  • Procter & Gamble successfully resolves class action claims after U.S. Supreme Court denies request for certiorari review by objectors to settlementJones Day defended The Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") and its subsidiary The Gillette Company in two consumer class actions concerning advertising of Duracell AA & AAA Ultra Batteries.
  • Procter & Gamble achieves dismissals with prejudice of two putative class action lawsuits over advertising for batteriesJones Day successfully defended The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) and its subsidiary The Gillette Company in two statewide consumer class actions in California and Massachusetts concerning Duracell AA and AAA Coppertop batteries.
    •

    AUGUST 2023 Commentary

    Recent Decisions in the Ninth Circuit Highlight U.S. Litigation Risk in Relation to Alleged Human Rights Violations Abroad

    February 2022 Commentary

    Ninth Circuit Approves California's Net Neutrality Law, Shifts Focus to FCC

    August 2021 Alert

    California Supreme Court Rules for Employers in Pair of Prevailing Wage Law Cases

    July 2021 White Paper

    Update: An Empirical Analysis of Federal Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements (2019–2020)

    JUNE 2021 Alert

    Supreme Court Again Reins in Scope of Claims Under the Alien Tort Statute

    APRIL 2021 Alert

    Ninth Circuit Clarifies Class Certification Standards in Antitrust Appeal

    April 2020 White Paper

    An Empirical Analysis of Federal Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements (2010–2018)

    April 2012 Alert

    The CFPB's Study on Arbitration Clauses: The First Step to Unraveling Concepcion in Consumer Transactions?

    • October 9, 2009
      U.S. Supreme Court Review & Preview, Jones Day San Francisco Office
    • October 21, 2005
      Comparative Taking and Regulation of Land, panelist, Hawaii State Bar Association 2005 Annual Meeting
    • August 5, 2005
      Property Rights and Regulations After the Supreme Court’s 2004 Term, panelist, State and Local Government Law Section American Bar Association 2005 Annual Meeting
    • March 9, 2005
      Class Action Developments:  Settlements and Fee Awards, SBC Legal Conference

    Avant d’envoyer cet e-mail, veuillez prendre note de ce qui suit :

    Les informations contenues sur le site www.jonesday.com sont destinées à un usage général et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques. L’envoi et la réception de cet e-mail n’ont pas pour effet de créer une relation avocat-client. Aucun envoi de votre part à un membre du Cabinet ne sera traité comme confidentiel ou protégé à moins que nous n’ayons donné notre accord pour vous représenter. En envoyant cet e-mail, vous confirmez avoir lu et compris la présente notification.