Andrew Schermerhorn

Kansas City, MO Directions

Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2025

Awarded Practice Areas

Appellate Practice

Visit Website

816-285-6022

Works at

Schermerhorn Law

1 Best Lawyers award

Biography

Andrew Schermerhorn is a top attorney recognized by Best Lawyers in the practice area of Appellate Practice.

Andrew, who practices law in Kansas City, Missouri, has been recognized since 2025. This recognition is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey, reflecting the high esteem in which Andrew is held by other top lawyers in the same geographic and legal practice area.

Andrew's practice is devoted to matters that demand strategic judgment, deep procedural knowledge, and disciplined advocacy. He is brought in when the stakes are high, the briefing needs to be excellent, or the procedural posture demands careful judgment. From dispositive motions and class certification, to appeals, and mass arbitration. Andrew can step in at any stage, from early strategy through trial and post-trial proceedings.

He works either as co-counsel or on an hourly or limited-scope basis.

Locations

Kansas City, Missouri

816-285-6022

4520 Main Street, Suite 700
Kansas City, MO 64111

Education

University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law, J.D., graduated 2009

Client Testimonials

Awards & Focus

Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America^® 2027 for work in:

Appellate Practice

Case History

Cases

UMB Bank v. Benton

In this appeal, UMB Bank attempted to reframe a probate/trust dispute involving the Thomas Hart Benton trusts into a federal civil RICO case. Andrew drafted the briefing that won dismissal in the district court and then wrote the appellate brief defending that dismissal, focusing on threshold defects like RICO standing and failure to plead a pattern of racketeering activity.

Hursh, et al. v. DST Systems

In consolidated appeals involving hundreds of individualized ERISA arbitrations, DST argued that a later-certified mandatory class action in New York blocked confirmation of final arbitration awards. Andrew defended the district court’s orders confirming the awards, explaining why confirmation is a limited, summary FAA proceeding and why DST’s class-certification and injunction theories did not bar enforcement.

DuCharme, et al. v. DST Sys.

In a high-stakes ERISA fiduciary-breach dispute involving DST Systems’ 401(k) plan, Andrew represented arbitration claimants in a multi-hundred–claim proceeding that DST itself had compelled to be arbitrated in Missouri, where the arbitrations progressed through discovery, hearings, and awards (many later confirmed as judgments). When DST pivoted to a mandatory class strategy in federal court and obtained an injunction halting the Missouri arbitrations and enforcement of awards, Andrew challenged the injunction in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as an improper end-run around the FAA and an interference with the Western District of Missouri’s authority and judgments.

In re: NFL Concussion

In the National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation, Andrew wrote the appellants’ brief challenging a federal MDL court order that enjoined Missouri plaintiffs from moving forward with their independently filed state-court concussion case. The brief framed the issue as a hard limit on federal power: under the Anti–Injunction Act, a federal court generally may not halt a state proceeding, and the All Writs Act does not expand that authority beyond the Anti–Injunction Act’s narrow exceptions. The appeal required close analysis of the interaction between MDL management, Rule 23 settlement proceedings, and federalism constraints—and argued that protecting a proposed class settlement is not, by itself, a lawful basis to shut down parallel, in-personam state tort litigation.

In re: NFL Concussion

In the NFL Concussion MDL, Andrew wrote several motions to remand seeking to return former players’ Missouri state-law claims against their team to Missouri state court after a second removal attempt. The motion argued that the claims arose from common-law duties independent of any collective bargaining agreement (defeating § 301 preemption), that a prior federal remand ruling was law of the case (and warranted comity in the MDL), and that removal was also barred because the claims implicated Missouri’s workers’ compensation/ occupational disease framework.

Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.

Please use the print button to print this profile page.