Kurt A.Johnson

Associate

デトロイト + 1.313.230.7916

Kurt Johnson's practice focuses on complex disputes, critical motions, and appeals.

Kurt has significant experience in antitrust matters, regulatory disputes, business and toxic tort litigation, intellectual property controversies, and constitutional challenges. His practice spans multiple industries, including aviation, automotive, health care, and financial services. Kurt has drafted numerous winning briefs filed in state and federal courts across the country, including the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. And he has presented oral argument before multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals, the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the Michigan Court of Claims.

Some of Kurt's recent victories include dismissal of group boycott and monopolization claims brought against a leading aerospace manufacturer; dismissal of conspiracy claims brought against a global automobile parts supplier; summary judgment in a toxic tort lawsuit for an industrial parts manufacturer; reversal on appeal in a securities lawsuit for one of the country's largest financial institutions; and favorable resolution of trade secret and contract claims brought on behalf of a major appliance manufacturer.

Kurt also devotes significant time to his pro bono practice, where he focuses on religious liberty and prisoner rights. Most recently, he successfully briefed and argued a case before the Michigan Court of Appeals involving parole eligibility for habitual offenders.

Before joining Jones Day, Kurt served as a law clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He also practiced for several years at an international law firm in Washington, D.C.

担当案件

  • Adient defends putative antitrust action alleging an unlawful boycott in the automotive seat cover industryJones Day is representing Adient plc in a putative antitrust action in which a Tier 2 supplier alleges that Tier 1 suppliers entered into an unlawful agreement with an OEM to refuse to purchase seat covers from the Tier 2 supplier.