Katharine Malone

  • Biography
  • Key Cases

Katharine Malone joined the Firm in 2020. Her practice focuses on commercial and antitrust class action litigation. She has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in matters related to information privacy, contract, fraud, fiduciary duty, and employee mobility issues. She has experience litigating in both state and federal trial and appellate courts, as well as the California and Wisconsin state supreme courts.

Katharine has successfully litigated and advised clients in complex commercial matters—including business disputes, consumer litigation, and employment matters—for public and private companies, from pre-litigation counseling through trial and appeals. She has extensive experience in all phases of motion practice, discovery, and trial procedure, up to and including preparing testifying witnesses for direct and cross-examination at trial.

In December 2017, she argued the matter of Lil’ Man In The Boat v. Auk Ta Shaa, No. 16-17299, before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the district court’s dismissal of claims against her client on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Katharine regularly writes and comments on various legal affairs. Her publications include: “Welcome to New York It’s Been Waiting for You . . . But Is Your Business Ready for the New York SHIELD Act?” CPO Magazine (April 1, 2020); “Data Privacy: The Current Legal Landscape 2018 Reviewed,” Troutman Sanders Insights (Jan. 15, 2019); “Did the General Contractor on the Death Star Have to Build the Second Death Star for Free?” The Legal Geeks (Feb. 2, 2018); “Think Twice Before Denying Requests for Admissions,” California Daily Journal (Sept. 24, 2015); and “Parody or Identity Theft: The High-Wire Act of Digital Doppelgangers in California,” 34 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 275 (2012).

Katharine currently volunteers her time as a participating attorney in the Federal Pro Bono Project, and has previously represented clients through KIND (Kids In Need of Defense) and the Southern Poverty Law Project.

While attending University of California, Hastings College of the Law, Katharine served as editor-in-chief of the Hastings Communications & Entertainment Law Journal.

Katharine Malone is a member of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

  • Altria-JUUL E-Cigarette Antitrust Litigation: The Firm is involved in e-cigarette antitrust lawsuits against Altria Group, Inc. and Juul Labs, Inc. (“JLI”) on behalf of individuals and businesses who purchased JUUL e-cigarette devices directly from JLI December 2018-present. The suits stem from an allegedly anticompetitive Altria/JLI agreement whereby Altria agreed to acquire an ownership interest in JLI in exchange for over $12 billion. Altria also allegedly agreed not to compete with JLI and to provide JLI valuable retail shelf space in the e-cigarette market. Through this agreement, JLI maintained its dominance in the e-cigarette market and earned monopoly profits; and
  • Facebook Content Moderators’ Safe Workplace Litigation: The Firm represents a prospective Plaintiff class against Facebook, Inc., alleging that Facebook failed to protect content moderators from developing post-traumatic stress disorder and other adverse effects resulting from constant viewing of offensive and extremely disturbing videos, images, and broadcasts posted to Facebook;
  • Generic Drug Price-Fixing Antitrust Litigation: The Firm is on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee representing U.S. consumers and insurers in a multi-district antitrust litigation accusing several generic drug manufacturers with conspiring to fix and raise prices for dozens of generic medications. In the past few years, prices for these drugs have skyrocketed by more than 1,000 percent. Consumers blame the companies for engineering these price hikes, eliminating the benefits of competition, and forcing them to pay exorbitant prices. The Firm is also currently investigating many other generic drugs for potential class action claims;
  • Interior Molded Doors Litigation: The Firm is Interim Co-Lead Counsel for a proposed Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Class of individuals and companies who purchased interior molded doors from Defendants JELD-WEN, Inc. and Masonite Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiffs and other potential Class members paid more for doors than they would have in a competitive environment.