Mr. Draigh is a partner in the firm's Disputes Section for the Americas. He has practiced from both New York and Miami, and his practice is complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on defending companies against consumer class actions and on state and federal appellate advocacy.
Over the past 15 years, Mr. Draigh also has represented law firms in legal malpractice actions and in SEC investigations; a corporate special committee investigating a shareholder derivative action; a large private foundation accused of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of its 20% share of a major asset; a European corporation investigating a whistleblower complaint of unethical business practices; and a European foundation involved in multiple litigations in the US and Europe in an international trusts and estates dispute.
Mr. Draigh's recent practice has focused on defending clients in class actions in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Those actions typically involve claims for consumer fraud, privacy violations, violation of consumer protection statutes and unfair or deceptive trade practices. Notable cases, in which the courts dismissed claims, compelled individual arbitration, denied class certification—or in which appellate courts granted similar relief—include:
- Public Concepts, LLC v. Veritext Corp., 2010 WL 2162891 (S.D. Fla. 2010)
- Eventys v. Comcast Spotlight, Inc., 28 So. 3d 959 (Fla. App. Ct. 2010)
- Honig v. Comcast of Georgia I, LLC, 537 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2008)
- Sanders v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 2008 WL 150479 (M.D. Fla. 2008)
- Hadfeg v. Comcast, 980 So. 2d 505 (Fla. App. Ct. 2008)
- Utility Consumers Action Network, Inc. v. AT&T Broadband of Southern Cal. Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 1023 (2006)
- Witten v. Comcast Corp., No. BC 312975 (Sup. Ct. L.A. County 2007)
- Burch v. United Cable Television of Baltimore, 391 Md. 687 (2006)
Mr. Draigh's practice also focuses on state and federal appellate advocacy. In recent cases of note, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a decision of the Southern District of Florida that would have severely threatened the ability of corporate defendants to remove class actions to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010)
. In Sierra Club, et al., v. Van Antwerp
, 661 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Sierra Club, holding that the Army Corps of Engineers had correctly issued a permit for a large development planned by our client, which had intervened in the litigation. And in AEP v. Connecticut
, __ U.S. __ (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, on whose behalf our client, the Washington Legal Foundation, submitted an amicus brief, holding that the Clean Air Act displaces federal lawsuits alleging that the emission of greenhouse gases is a public nuisance.