John Nadolenco

John recently represented Facebook in several cases alleging privacy violations under a state biometrics law, which included a bench trial to determine if Facebook’s terms of use were binding. John routinely represents automobile manufacturers, other transport companies and related trade associations in a variety of matters, including class actions and cases challenging government regulation. In one case, after a lengthy trial John obtained a permanent injunction on behalf of the railway industry preempting and precluding enforcement of an air-quality district’s laws. John also represented Volkswagen in dozens of putative class actions alleging the company improperly installed emissions-defeat devices on some of its diesel cars. And John represents the Country of Brazil in its effort to capture the infamous 840-pound Bahia Emerald. John’s efforts in that case have made international and national headlines. 

John has defended companies in cases alleging improper consumer charges and practices, false and misleading advertising, defective products, unauthorized call recording under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Internet privacy violations and improper tracking via computer-based cookies and improper use of smartphone and tablet applications (apps). John has extensive experience defending wage-hour cases, including cases alleging meal-period, rest-period and off-the-clock violations, as well as claims alleging incorrect pay statements and waiting-time and other penalties. John also has extensive experience drafting and enforcing consumer and employee arbitration provisions, privacy policies, terms of use and social-media policies. John served as co-editor of Mayer Brown’s The Social Media Revolution: A Legal Handbook.

John served as a member of Mayer Brown’s Partnership Board and as firm-wide co-lead of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution and Consumer Litigation & Class Actions practices. He received a Martindale-Hubbell peer review rating of AV-Preeminent and was also named in The Best Lawyers in America.® He was also named one of the “Top 20 California Lawyers Under 40” by the Daily Journal and serves on the Advisory Board for American University’s Tech, Law & Security Program. 

• Meta Biometric Information Privacy Litigation: Defending Meta in several highly publicized putative class actions challenging Meta’s “Tag Suggestions” feature, which uses facial-recognition software to allow the people who use Meta to identify their friends more easily in photos that they upload. The plaintiffs claim that this feature violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and seek statutory damages on behalf of putative classes of Illinois residents. 
• Smith v. Meta, No. 16-1282 (N.D. Cal.): Defending Meta in a case alleging that Meta obtained their communications with various healthcare-related websites through the use of cookies, and then used that information for marketing purposes. 
• Saunders v. StubHub, (S.F. Superior). Defending company against claims that it improperly recorded customer-service calls in violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
• Taylor v. Spokeo, Inc. (D. N.J.). Defending company against claims that its website misled consumers about the content of certain Internet search results.
• Gabra v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Tenn.). Defending company against claims that it failed to make appropriate disclosures required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
• Rostack, Inc. v. Sabella (L.A. Superior). Obtained $51 million summary judgment on claim that defendant—a member of a high-profile family in Hong Kong—failed to repay a promissory note. In addition, the court awarded our client the full amount of the fees it incurred in prosecuting the case.
• City of Los Angeles v. AT&T (L.A. Superior). Defended company in bench trial over whether AT&T’s U-Verse television service violated California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA).
• Garland Center v. AT&T (L.A. Superior). Defended company against claims that it was required to pay for space and power in a telecommunications “carrier hotel.”
• Demulder v. Carter-Reed Company, LLC. (S.D. Cal.). Defended company against claims that it improperly recorded consumer telephone calls in violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Carter-Reed moved to dismiss arguing—as we have in other CIPA cases—that the legislature never intended CIPA to apply to customer-service calls and that CIPA does not apply to calls made from outside of California. Shortly after being served with Carter-Reed’s motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case.
• Morgan v. AT&T Mobility (Los Angeles Superior Court, Complex Panel). Defeated certification—prior to full briefing on all certification issues—by successfully arguing that arbitration clause in bulk of customer agreements should preclude certification even if clause did not apply to named plaintiffs.
• Selby v. AT&T Mobility (Orange County Superior Court, Complex Panel). Obtained judgment on the pleadings, prior to certification stage, based on argument that AT&T did not seek to enforce the contractual clauses at issue against plaintiffs.
• DuWors v. TracFone et al. (US District Court for the Western District of Washington). Defended telecommunications company in consumer class action alleging that cell phone minutes are gift cards or gift certificates.
• Blackwater Worldwide (now Xe Company) v. City of San Diego et al. (US District Court for the Southern District of California). In the wake of the USS. Cole bombing, Blackwater Worldwide was awarded a contract by the US Navy to train its sailors to handle small fire arms. Just days before Blackwater was supposed to start training the sailors--and in the midst of primary elections--the City of San Diego announced that it would not allow Blackwater to open a military training facility in San Diego County. John led the team that obtained a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining City officials from preventing Blackwater from occupying and using its facility. The Court found that the City violated its own Municipal Code, as well as Blackwater’s constitutional due-process rights. The highly charged political and legal case drew wide-spread attention in the primary and general elections in San Diego and garnered additional attention due to stiff opposition by activists opposed to Blackwater. After full briefing before the Ninth Circuit, the parties settled the dispute for a payment of $150,000 in attorneys fees from the City to Blackwater.
• Azoiani v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (US District Court for the Central District of California). Defeated certification in putative nationwide consumer class action alleging violations of Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA).
• BNSF Rail Way Co. et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (US District Court for the Central District of California). Represented BNSF and its trade association in a federal preemption bench trial. The District Court issued a permanent injunction precluding the South Coast Air Quality Management District from enforcing rules regulating locomotive and rail-yard emissions.
• Clayworth v. Pfizer et al. (Alameda County Superior Court). Represented Amgen Inc. in an antitrust claim in which plaintiffs claimed that the defendant pharmaceutical companies conspired to fix prices in the United States.
• Savaglio et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al. (Alameda County Superior Court). Represented Wal-Mart in a statewide meal-period class action, from the outset of the case, through class certification briefing and during the four-month jury trial in Alameda County, California.