Paul J. Riehle

Paul is a past chair of the California State Bar Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Section and a member of the Section from 2010 to 2016. He served from 2018 to 2022 as the Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Section Representative on the Board of the California Lawyers Association, and has been an advisor to the Section since 2017. 

Paul serves as a San Francisco County Superior Court arbitrator and settlement conference officer, as well as a mediator.

Antitrust Litigation and Counseling

Paul has over three decades of experience as an antitrust litigator on matters involving federal and state laws, particularly the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act, as well as its Unfair Competition Law (UCL), including claims of monopolization and attempted monopolization, price-fixing, bid-rigging, non-compete agreements, and tying. He also counsels clients on state and federal antitrust laws and regulations, including in connection with mergers and acquisitions, on minimum advertised pricing for internet sales, and for trade and standard-setting organizations.

Antitrust Litigation Representative Experience

• Permanent injunction affirmed regarding anti-steering provisions in developer agreements based on the unfair prong of the UCL. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2023), cert denied, No. 23-344, 2024 WL 156474 (Jan. 16, 2024).
• Summary judgment as to collaboration agreements containing non-compete clauses regarding three of four at-issue fixed-dose combination drugs used to treat HIV. In re HIV Antitrust Litigation, 656 F. Supp. 3d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2023).
• Dismissal of lead end-payor plaintiff, an association, based on lack of Article III standing. Staley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 3d 977 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2022).
• Dismissal of lead consumer class plaintiff, an activist, based on lack of Article III standing. Staley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., 2022 WL 1158006 (N.D. Cal. April 19, 2022).
• Dismissal of Sherman Act and Cartwright Act claims for alleged price-fixing. In re California Bail Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2021) and 2020 WL 3041316 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020).
• Granting in part motion to dismiss Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims regarding collaboration agreements in connection with HIV medicines. Staley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 3d 578 (N.D. Cal. 2020) and 2020 WL 5507555 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2020).
• Dismissal of lawsuit alleging antitrust, RICO, and state claims against The Regents of the University of California, sued as University of California, Berkeley School of Law. LLM Bar Exam, LLC v. BarBri, Inc. et al., 16-cv-03770-KPF, ECF No. 89 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2016).
• Dismissal of standard-setting company in putative class action asserting violations of federal and state antitrust laws. B & R Supermarket, Inc. v. Visa, Inc. et al., 2016 WL 5725010 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016).
• Affirming dismissal of antitrust claims brought by a surgical group and its physicians against two health management and maintenance associations. Boffa Surgical Group LLC v. Managed Healthcare Associates Ltd., Case No. 2015 IL App (1st) 142984 (Dec. 23, 2015). 
• Summary judgment regarding claims of industry-wide price-fixing under California’s Cartwright Act and UCL affirmed on appeal. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 3596452 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2012). See also Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758 (2010).
• Affirming dismissal of RICO and all but one antitrust claim, and summary judgment on remaining antitrust claim of attempted monopolization. Tate v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 94 Fed. App. 529 (9th Cir. 2004).
• Cy pres settlement, Pharmaceutical Cases I, II and III, J.C.C.P. Nos. 2969, 2971 & 2972 (San Francisco Superior Court).

Class Action Defense

Paul frequently has obtained dismissal of class actions on the pleadings and by summary judgment. He successfully has opposed certification of classes brought by businesses and consumers, and he has settled claims when appropriate. In addition to antitrust class actions, Paul has defended numerous class actions involving California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and False Advertising Law (FAL), as well as alleged violation of RICO and other federal and state laws, such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 

Class Action Representative Experience

• Denial of motion for class certification, Nguyen v. Nissan No. Am., Inc., 487 F. Supp. 3d 845 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2020), following reversal of prior order denying class certification. Nguyen v. Nissan No. Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019) reversing 2018 WL 1831857 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018).
• Dismissal with prejudice of UCL and unjust-enrichment claims, as well as CLRA restitution and injunctive relief claims. Nguyen v. Nissan No. Am., Inc., 2017 WL 1330602 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017).
• Dismissal, without leave to amend, of initial complaint in nationwide class action claiming RICO violations. Shaw v. Nissan No. Am., Inc., 220 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2016).
• Denial of motion for class certification. Torres v. Nissan No. Am., Inc., 2015 WL 5170539 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015).
• Reversal of denial of injunction of restitution claims released as part of nationwide class settlement. The People of the State of California v. IntelliGender, LLC, 771 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2014).
• Dismissal of drug pricing overcharge claims. Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, Cal., 563 U.S. 110 (2011).
• Denial of class certification motion. Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, Cal., 257 F.R.D. 207 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

Commercial Litigation

Paul represents companies in pharmaceutical, technology, insurance, consumer products, consumer fitness, financial services, manufacturing, media, solar, software and other industries on a broad range of issues. He has won plaintiff and defense verdicts before juries in state and federal court, and guided clients in responding to subpoenas from governmental agencies. Paul has “parachuted in" to handle the punitive-damages phase of trial and post-trial motions in challenging cases.

Commercial Litigation Representative Experience

• Dismissal based on lack of Article III standing. Insigne Consulting, Inc. v. Freedom Equity Group, LLC, 2023 WL 3150096 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023).
• Jury defense verdict in a distributor termination case tried in Silicon Valley against a Fortune 500 company.
• Nonsuit affirmed on appeal regarding claims for market-share liability and civil conspiracy to defraud through the manipulation of scientific literature.
• Brought in to try punitive-damages phase after an Alameda County jury returned a multimillion dollar verdict and a unanimous finding of fraud, malice and oppression. In the punitive-damages phase of the trial, the jury awarded 1.3% of the compensatory verdict. The trial court then granted new trial motion, which was affirmed on appeal. 
• Successfully defended manufacturer against claims by competitor for theft of trade secrets following hiring of competitor’s former employee.
• Favorably resolved suit against software development company regarding claims for breach of contract for development of software for a global information services company.
• Successful defense of a national automotive tool manufacturing company in more than 50 cases brought by dealers alleging violation of the Seller Assisted Marketing Plan Act.
• Summary judgment regarding claims under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act.
• Multimillion-dollar federal court jury award representing the plaintiff in a fraud case.
• Successful jury trial defense of national franchisor regarding exclusive-territory claims.

Personal Interests

Paul is a lifelong surfer and a founding board member of SurfAid, a 20-plus year old international humanitarian aid nonprofit organization. He has biked to work for nearly 30 years and has been a Golden State Warriors season ticket holder for over 30 years.