Published Opinions

Mr. Cramer has represented clients in a variety of precedent-setting cases, including the following:

• Represented El Pollo Loco USA in a contract and trademark dispute with El Pollo Loco Mexico. The case was governed by Mexican law and involved the ownership rights of the El Pollo brand in Mexico. See El Pollo Loco, S.A. de C.V. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 986 (S.D. Tex. 2004).
• Represented the Trustee in a bankruptcy case and hundreds of related adversary proceedings arising out of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in United States history. The case made new law in the Ninth Circuit concerning litigation arising out of failed Ponzi schemes. See Rosen v. Neilson (In re Slatkin), 310 B.R. 740 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Jenner v. Neilson (In re Slatkin), 222 Fed. Appx. 545 (9th Cir. 2007).
• Represented the California Institute of Technology in a putative class action brought by a number of employees challenging the constitutionality of a NASA-ordered background check program implemented at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Caltech was dismissed from the case as a matter of law without leave to amend. See Nelson v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al., 530 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2008); Nelson v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al., 506 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2007).
• Represented The Home Depot in a putative class action alleging breach of contract, unfair business practices, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act in connection with The Home Depot’s cabinet-refacing business. The case was dismissed with prejudice in a published opinion, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal. See Spiegler v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d 2009 WL 3358556, No. 08-55782 (9th Cir. October 20, 2009).
• Represented The DIRECTV Group in litigation brought by a minority shareholder seeking to block various transactions involving DIRECTV Latin America, LLC and seeking significant monetary damages. The DIRECTV Group obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court in New York, which resulted in the dismissal of more than $1 billion in damages claims. See The DIRECTV Group v. Darlene Investments, LLC, 2006 WL 2773024 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
• Represented DIRECTV, Inc. in a number of consolidated lawsuits seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages based on alleged unfair business practices, breach of contract, and other legal theories. Several pretrial victories resulted in published decisions. See NRTC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 522 (C.D. Cal. 2004); NRTC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2003); NRTC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (C.D. Cal. 2003); NRTC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The cases settled on the eve of trial without any monetary payment from DIRECTV.

Additional representative matters include:

• Represented a number of apparel companies and retailers in nationwide and California statewide putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,  the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law based on the sale of products labeled as “Made in the USA” that are alleged to contain one or more component parts that are foreign-made.
• Represented a home security company in a statewide putative class action alleging fraud and fraudulent business practices based on the automatic renewal provision in the company’s form consumer contracts.
• Represented a home security company in a statewide putative class action lawsuit alleging fraud, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act based on early termination fees. The court sustained demurrers to all causes of action without leave to amend.
• Settled a dispute on behalf of a private equity fund client that acquired a portfolio company and subsequently discovered that, prior to the acquisition, the seller had failed to disclose millions of dollars in tax liabilities. After sending the seller a demand letter with a draft complaint, settlement discussions began in less than 24 hours and the case settled on favorable terms in less than two weeks.
• For purposes of defending a consumer technology company client in a nationwide class action alleging that the client’s products posed a risk of hearing loss, Mark assembled a team of in-house and third party experts to explain the underlying science and causes of hearing loss as well as the design and testing of the client’s products to ensure that they did not generate sounds above safe levels. As part of an early settlement negotiation process, plaintiffs were presented with the relevant scientific data and provided with design specifications and test results for the products at issue, which also demonstrated that the products complied with the OSHA standards referenced in plaintiffs’ complaint. The parties reached a nuisance value settlement with no monetary relief to the putative class.
• Retained by an entertainment-industry client approximately six months before trial in a case seeking millions of dollars plus punitive damages for personal injuries. Successfully reopened fact discovery, conducted additional depositions, and obtained additional documents from plaintiff and third parties. Moved for summary adjudication and knocked out plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages before trial. Obtained a unanimous jury verdict at trial, which was affirmed on appeal.
• On behalf of a Fortune 50 technology company, Mr. Cramer led a team of attorneys (and managed three e-discovery vendors) to conduct the fact investigation and document collection and production related to patent disputes pending in two separate International Trade Commission proceedings and federal courts in California, Texas, and Wisconsin. In less than three months, Mr. Cramer and his team conducted more than 50 employee interviews and collected and reviewed a massive amount of documents and electronic data, which enabled the client to negotiate a global settlement.
• In the bankruptcy of what was then one of the largest grocery wholesale companies, Mr. Cramer managed the mediation and settlement of hundreds of preference actions over a period of three months. He personally handled the mediations and settlement negotiations on behalf of the bankruptcy trustee. Mr. Cramer managed a team of eight lawyers who reviewed and analyzed documents, invoices, payment records, and accounting records for each defendant subject to a preference action, as well as addressing each defendant’s unique defenses. This process allowed as many as a dozen actions to be mediated each day and helped recover millions of dollars for the bankruptcy estate.
• As part of a nine-month secondment to the in-house legal department of a Global 1000 corporation, advised and counseled executives and managers from various business units, investigated and helped resolve a variety of pre-litigation disputes, and managed outside counsel handling active litigation matters.

Mr. Cramer is actively involved in pro bono work and impact litigation, including the following:

• Obtained a unanimous reversal in the Ninth Circuit in a case of first impression under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In re B. Del C.S.B., 559 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court agreed with our client that the custody determination should be made in California under California law, and not in a Mexican Court applying Mexican law. The ruling was widely reported by the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, and the Associated Press. Mr. Cramer also served as amicus counsel to The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in a redevelopment abuse case, Fontana Redevelopment Agency v. Torres, 153 Cal. App. 4th 902 (2007), in which he successfully advocated for the reversal of a trial court decision validating a redevelopment agency’s misuse of property tax revenues.
• Served as amicus counsel to a number of crime victims and relatives of crime victims in a post-conviction DNA testing case in the United States Supreme Court. District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009).