Partner

Minh Nguyen-Dang

Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Supreme Court & Appellate

Overview

Minh Nguyen-Dang is a Litigation and Dispute Resolution partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a member of the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice. He focuses on briefing cases in federal and state appellate courts across the country, including the United States Supreme Court, and has argued before several federal courts of appeals. In 2024, Benchmark Litigation named Minh to its “40 & Under” list as one of the “best and brightest litigators across the US and Canada.”

Minh has drafted dozens of appellate briefs, petitions for discretionary review in the Supreme Court and other appellate courts, and oppositions to petitions for discretionary review, for clients across many different industries. His cases cover a broad range of substantive issues, including administrative law, constitutional law, environmental law, ERISA, intellectual property, torts, and tax. Clients also turn to Minh to brief and argue critical or dispositive motions in high-stakes matters in federal district court, including motions on class certification and summary judgment.

Minh joined Mayer Brown from another leading appellate litigation practice. Before entering private practice, Minh served as a law clerk for the Honorable Goodwin Liu on the California Supreme Court.


Experience

  • Represented a major university retirement plan in the United States Supreme Court on the scope of ERISA’s prohibited-transaction provisions;
  • Secured several victories while representing the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission in the ongoing litigation over state regulation of prediction markets;
  • Obtained a reversal of a $200 million judgment in the Delaware Supreme Court for major energy company in a landmark case on the scope of liability for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty;
  • Obtained a complete victory on appeal in the Federal Circuit in a patent case for a manufacturer of tire pressure sensors, securing a complete reversal of a jury verdict and a finding of obviousness that invalidated a competing manufacturer’s patent;

Recognition

  • Named to Benchmark Litigation‘s “40 & Under” list, 2024

Education

  • Stanford Law School, JD, with pro bono distinction
    • Special projects editor, Stanford Law Review;
    • Managing editor, Stanford Environmental Law Review
  • Princeton University, AB, cum laude

Admissions

  • California
  • District of Columbia

Courts

  • US Supreme Court
  • US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • US District Court for the Southern District of California
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • United States Court of Federal Claims
  • US Tax Court

Languages

  • French
  • English
Share