James M. Burgess

James M. Burgess is a partner in the firm's Century City office and is the Team Leader of the Business Trial Group's Consumer Class Action Team.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Burgess represents businesses in commercial litigation. He has handled many class actions and cases under the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200), including through trial and appeal, and he speaks and writes frequently on those issues. His cases typically involve allegations of breach of contract and commercial torts such as fraud and interference with contract. Mr. Burgess also helps businesses collect outstanding debts and prosecute allegations of fraud. He has handled a variety of cases, including consumer class actions, insurance bad faith, breach of warranty, product defect, leasing and real estate disputes, disputes concerning asset purchase agreements, antitrust, lender liability, sales tax reimbursement disputes, idea submission, and trademark infringement. His published cases include Advanced Building Maintenance v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1388, Scheffield Medical Group, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 868, Conversive, Inc. v. Conversagent, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2006) 433 F.Supp.2d 1079, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1284 and Mitan v. Feeney (C.D.Cal. 2007) ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 2068106.

Education

• J.D., University of Southern California Law Center, 1990, Order of the Coif
• B.A., Claremont McKenna College, 1984

Admissions

• California, including all federal District Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Representative Clients

• State Compensation Insurance Fund, Nordstrom, Inc., Fox Entertainment Group, Omnicare, CNA, Northrop Grumman, Conversive, Inc. and Enersys

Representative Matters

• A&J Liquor Co., et al. v. State Fund: Mr. Burgess was trial counsel for State Fund in this certified class action, which involved allegations of premium overcharging as a result of allegedly excessive reserves set by claims adjusters. After a seven month bench trial involving over 50 witnesses and 1,200 exhibits, the court entered a judgment in favor of State Fund and against the plaintiffs and a class of over 160,000 policyholders. Mr. Burgess argued several key motions before trial, and examined and cross-examined numerous witnesses at trial, including the plaintiffs' only expert on claims adjusting and reserving. The judgment was affirmed in full by the Court of Appeal
• Westrup v. Nordstrom: Mr. Burgess was lead trial counsel for Nordstrom in a 17200 class action that was tried in Los Angeles Superior Court as a representative action. The plaintiff contended Nordstrom collected excess sales tax reimbursements when merchandise certificates distributed pursuant to a rewards program were redeemed. The Court held that Nordstrom did not engage in any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business conduct and that it collected the proper amount of sales tax. The Plaintiff abandoned her appeal
• Ronald L. Wolfe & Assoc. v. State Fund: Mr. Burgess was lead trial counsel for State Fund in an insurance bad faith case arising out of the cancellation of an insurance policy. The trial lasted 8 days and resulted in a unanimous defense verdict in favor of State Fund in the Santa Barbara Superior Court. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney's fees. The Plaintiff did not appeal the result
• Conversive, Inc. v. Conversagent, Inc.: Mr. Burgess was lead trial counsel for plaintiff Conversive in a trademark infringement action filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The District Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff's mark was valid and had priority and that the Defendant's mark infringed that mark. The District Court also issued a preliminary injunction precluding the Defendant from using the confusingly similar mark which also was its top line brand, company name and website domain name. The District Court's opinion was published in Federal Supplement. After the Court's order, the Defendant settled by stipulating to a permanent injunction, agreeing on restrictions to its trademarks and agreeing to pay $400,000 in Plaintiff's attorney's fees
• Atlas Mill Supply v. State Fund: Mr. Burgess was trial counsel for State Fund in this insurance bad faith case arising out of allegations of claims mishandling and over-reserving. The jury trial, which lasted one month, resulted in a unanimous defense verdict in favor of State Fund in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. At trial, Mr. Burgess examined or cross-examined all five of the percipient witnesses, and one of the five experts. The Plaintiff abandoned its appeal
• Go Motorboards v. EnerSys: Mr. Burgess was lead trial counsel for EnerSys in a breach of warranty/fraud case filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California arising out of the sale of batteries to an electric scooter manufacturer. The Court dismissed all fraud claims with prejudice on a motion to dismiss. After the deposition of the plaintiff's expert, the Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of all of its other claims with prejudice and entry of judgment in favor of EnerSys for the full amount of its counterclaim

Memberships

• Co-Chair of the Consumer Class Action Subcommittee of the ABA Litigation Section's Class Action and Derivative Suits Committee

Articles

• Courts Cling to Tradition on CAFA Removal Burden, May 15, 2006
• Class-Action Puts New Limits on Plaintiffs, Venue, March 4, 2005
• adbriefs - Winter 2004, December 7, 2004
• Toss Suits Affected By Proposition 64, November 17, 2004
• Unfair-Competition Law Reform May Encourage Class Actions, August 25, 2004

• "Agencies Can't Sue Under Unfair Competition Law," Daily Journal (June 8, 1998). This article discusses the fact that government agencies are not within the definition of a "person" that can sue or be sued under the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Several decisions were issued after this article was published which followed the conclusion of the article
• "Broad Unfair Competition Standing To Be Reviewed," Daily Journal (1999). This article discusses the dilemma facing the Supreme Court in Kraus and Cortez and the need to alter the broad standing rules under the Unfair Competition Law. This issue was later addressed by Proposition 64
• "Unfair Competition Law Reform May Encourage Class Actions," Daily Journal (August 25, 2004). This article discusses the fact that the changes resulting from Proposition 64 might encourage some plaintiffs to file class actions

Speeches

• Has given numerous MCLE presentations and speeches concerning strategies for defending against Unfair Competition Law claims, as well as the impact of the federal Class Action Fairness Act.
• Participated in two televised debates in favor of Proposition 64, which was passed by the voters in November 2004 and significantly reformed the Unfair Competition Law