John Nadolenco

• In re Volkswagen.  Defended VW in dozens of California federal and state putative class actions alleging that the company improperly installed emissions-defeat devices on some of its diesel cars.
• Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. (US District Court for the Central District of California). Representing Spokeo in a putative nationwide class action under the Fair Credit Report Act.  After obtaining dismissal from the trial court and the Ninth Circuit reversing, the case headed to the US Supreme Court (see above).  Ultimately, the Court ruled for Spokeo, holding that plaintiffs must allege real and particularized injuries to satisfy Article III.  Since then, John has handled numerous cases raising “Spokeo issues.”
• In re Bahia Emerald. Representing the country of Brazil—before state and federal courts, and before numerous federal agencies—in its effort to repatriate the infamous 840-pound Bahia Emerald. The case has drawn a significant amount of international and national media attention.  Succeeded in working with U.S. Department of Justice to seize the Emerald pending criminal proceedings in Brazil.  
• Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation: Defending Facebook in several highly publicized putative class actions challenging Facebook’s “Tag Suggestions” feature, which uses facial-recognition software to allow the people who use Facebook 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. Facebook, No. 16-1282 (N.D. Cal.): Defending Facebook in a case alleging that Facebook 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.

American University Washington College of Law, JD, summa cum laude

University of Arizona, BA, summa cum laude

• California

Gericht

• US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• US District Court for the Central District of California
• US District Court for the Northern District of California
• US District Court for the Southern District of California
• US District Court for the Eastern District of California

• Los Angeles County Bar Association
• Member of the Board of Governors for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL), Los Angeles, since 2005