On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court handed down two decisions that may, in practice, limit the ability to access federal district courts. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that statutory violations are per se sufficient to confer Article III standing, and, in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, No. 14-1132, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), the Court concluded that jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Act (Exchange Act) is limited to suits brought under the Exchange Act and state law claims that turn on the plaintiff’s ability to prove the violation of a federal duty.
Marc represents clients in federal and state court at the trial and appellate levels with a particular focus on class actions, multi-district litigation, and mass joinders. Among Marc’s current engagements, he represents the Regents of the University of California and Santa Clara University in multiple pandemic-related class actions seeking refunds of tuition and fees; Deloitte & Touche in a pay and promotion gender discrimination class action; NCAA in concussion and injury-related cases throughout the country; Marathon Oil Corporation in nationwide climate change litigation; and multiple foreign defendants in a class action in an MDL arising out of allegedly defective drywall. Recently, Marc played a lead role in securing denial of class certification and affirmance by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an employment discrimination suit against Microsoft. He also successfully secured dismissal on immunity grounds of the Regents of the University of California in a class action before the Northern District of California. In addition, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Marc is actively assisting clients in strategizing around litigation arising out of the health crisis.
Marc served as a law clerk to Judge Betty B. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Prior to joining Orrick, Marc worked as an appellate and post-conviction attorney for the Equal Justice Initiative. In that capacity, he engaged in trial level and appellate representation of clients in both state and federal court, including two cases that were briefed and argued before the United States Supreme Court.
Posts by: Marc Shapiro
On March 28, 2016, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari review brought by Laurie Bebo, the former CEO of Assisted Living Concepts Inc., who challenged the constitutionality of proceedings conducted in an SEC administrative tribunal. Although the Court denied review, there are many more cases like it winding their way through the federal system, and in the likely event a split develops among the circuits, the Supreme Court may be inclined to address the issue, especially given the amount of attention the issue has received. Indeed, Bebo’s petition itself attracted the notice of celebrity entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who filed an amicus brief in her case arguing that the SEC’s administrative tribunal is a “farce” and unconstitutional.
Today, the Solicitor General filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), asking the United States Supreme Court to address the standard for insider trading in a tipper-tippee scenario. Specifically, the Solicitor General argues that the Second Circuit’s Newman decision is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), and the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Salman, No. 14-10204 (9th Cir. July 6, 2015). Because the Supreme Court grants certiorari in nearly three out of four cases filed by the Solicitor General, the likelihood of a cert grant in Newman is particularly high.