Chair-Portland Litigation Department

Areas of Practice
Complex litigation, with an emphasis on antitrust and securities

Representative Experience
Antitrust, litigation in state and federal court, arbitrations and administrative proceedings

Representative Cases
Gibson et al. v. Providence Health System, Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 0601-01059. Representing hospital system in putative class action alleging various claims in connection with theft of backup tapes containing patient data. Obtained dismissal and striking of class allegations.

Hafez Daraee and Brooks Cooper, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 0004-03311. Represented Microsoft in a class action brought by purchasers of Microsoft’s Windows 98 operating systems, who claimed they were overcharged in violation of the antitrust laws. This case was one of 137 state court class action lawsuits filed against Microsoft, after the U.S. government’s lawsuit resulted in a federal judge declaring that Microsoft was an unlawful monopolist. Successfully obtained dismissal of the case at the pleading stage, which resulted in Microsoft’s first nationwide victory in any of the antitrust class actions.

Theodore R. Ford, M.D. v. Cascade Health Services, et al. USDC (Oregon) Civil No. 03-6256-TC. Represent defendant anesthesiology group in antitrust case brought by competing anesthesiologist. Defendants include Central Oregon Community Hospital and St. Charles Medical Center. Plaintiff has asserted claims against anesthesiology group and hospital system for conspiracy in restraint of trade, and monopolization under the state and federal antitrust laws, and for tortious interference with contract. The antitrust claims were dismissed on summary judgment.

Volm v. Legacy Health System, Inc., et al. , USDC (Oregon), Civil No. CV 00-1168-KI. Represent Legacy Health System in an antitrust case brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case was brought by a healthcare provider who alleged defendants entered into a conspiracy to exclude it from the market, and who also brought various business tort claims. The antitrust claims were dismissed on summary judgment.

Forrest Carter, M.D., P.C. v. Cascade Comprehensive Care, Inc., et al. , USDC (Oregon), Civil No. CV 96-3028-CO. Represented defendant medical group in antitrust case brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The case was dismissed with prejudice after the court granted motions to dismiss.

Clough, et al. v. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. and Equilon Enterprises LLC, USDC (Oregon) Civil No. CV 96-3028-JO. Represented Texaco and Equilon in antitrust case brought by gasoline dealers in the Portland area. Plaintiffs alleged defendants violated price discrimination statutes, and sought $9 million in damages. Case settled after summary judgment motions filed.

Northwest Aluminum Company, et al. v. Hydro Aluminum Deutschland GmbH, et al. USDC (Oregon) Civil No. 02-0398-MO. Represented defendants in antitrust case brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Case involved allegations of price fixing of the international markets for cathodes, which are used in the smelting of aluminum. Settled after filing of summary judgment motions.

Viacom Inc. v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp. , USDC (Oregon), Civil No. 95-115-MA. Responsible for defending antitrust counterclaims brought against Viacom Inc. and Blockbuster Entertainment. The counterclaims sought damages of $100,000,000 as well as various forms of injunctive relief including divestiture. The case settled after the filing of summary judgment motions and prior to trial.

Premier Technologies v. State of Oregon, Marion County Circuit Court No. 92C10520. Represented plaintiff in an $18,000,000 breach of contract and administrative action brought against the State of Oregon. The case settled during appeal and after a three-week jury trial.

Value Mobile Homes v. Bank of America, Marion County Circuit Court No. 91C 11673. Represented defendant bank in a multimillion dollar lender liability case. Judgment for defendant after appeal of jury trial verdict.

Nike, Inc. v. Commercial Iberica de Exclusivas, Deportivas S.A., et al., U.S.D.C. (Oregon), Civil No. 89-1325MA. Represented Spanish corporation in suit by Nike seeking $10,000,000 in damages and injunctive relief. The claims involved allegations of fraud, breach of international distribution contract, and unfair competition. The case was tried to the court, and while Nike was successful on liability, the court did not award any damages. On appeal, the case was dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction grounds.

Memberships and Activities
Member, ABA Antitrust Section

Executive Committee Member, Oregon State Bar Section on Antitrust Trade Regulation and Unfair Trade Practice, Chairman, 1988-89 and 1996-97

Executive Committee Member, Oregon State Bar Section on Business Litigation

Chair, Litigation Practice Group, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland Office

Named as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” in Antitrust Law by Woodward/White

Named as one of "America's Leading Business Lawyers" by Chambers USA

Selected to “Oregon Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics

Education
J.D., Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College

B.A. in Political Science, University of Minnesota

Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota, September 1974 to June 1976