Daniel Queen is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Los Angeles and New York offices and a member of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice. He is a seasoned trial and appellate litigator, with extensive experience litigating complex issues in federal and state courts. Most recently, Dan served as trial counsel in Rostack Investments Inc. v. Angela C. Sabella (Cal. Super. Ct. 2021), in which his team secured a $90 million judgment that the Daily Journal called one of California’s “Top Verdicts” for 2021.

Dan’s civil litigation practice concentrates on consumer class action defense and commercial litigation. He excels in defending high-profile manufacturing, technology, and financial services clients in high-stakes disputes. Dan represents clients on a broad array of claims, including consumer protection and deception actions, internet privacy and cybersecurity disputes, and intellectual property matters. He also advises clients on California legal and regulatory requirements, including California’s Proposition 65 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Dan maintains an active pro bono practice, with a focus on personal and family rights within historically marginalized groups. He has obtained asylum for individuals who were persecuted based on their LGBT status and other protected grounds, authored an amicus brief cited by New York’s highest court in its decision to extend child custody visitation rights to same-sex partners, represented a foster mother in the adoption of her foster child, and developed resources to facilitate name and gender marker changes.


Examples of Dan’s cases include:

  • Rostack Investments v. Angela Sabella (Los Angeles Superior Ct. 2021): Trial counsel for a lender, Rostack Investments, in a contractual dispute with its noteholder. Obtained $90 million judgment in client’s favor.
  • Nestlé USA v. Best Foods Inc.,562 F. Supp. 3d 626 (C.D. Cal. 2021) and Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Ultra Distribuciones Mundiales S.A., 516 F. Supp. 3d 633 (W.D. Tex. 2021): Counsel for Nestlé USA and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. in Lanham Act actions seeking to halt the unauthorized sale of millions of dollars of “grey market” Nestlé products to U.S. customers. Defeated defendants’ motions to dismiss, with the courts issuing major rulings on trademark holders’ rights to defend against the sale of “grey market” goods.
  • Chong v. KIND LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d. 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022): Represented manufacturer of breakfast and snack products in putative class action asserting false advertising, fraud/misrepresentation, and unfair business practices claims. Prevailed on motion to dismiss, resulting in with-prejudice dismissal of all claims.
  • Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 2021 WL 4460734 (S.D. Cal. 2021): Obtained with-prejudice dismissal of a putative class action brought against Eden Creamery, manufacturer of Halo Top ice cream, asserting consumer protection and common law fraud claims.
  • West Central Produce v. HSBC Bank N.A., 2020 WL 8254865 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ), aff’d, 2022 WL 1285041 (9th Cir. 2022) and 2021 WL 3557672 (C.D. Cal. 2021): Represented HSBC Bank in action seeking recovery of loan repayments pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act; secured with-prejudice dismissals of claims and cross-claims seeking millions of dollars from HSBC.
  • Mercado v. eBay Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020): Represented eBay in putative class action alleging that eBay users’ sales practices violated price-gouging laws.
  • Leramo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2019 WL 1651268 (E.D. Cal. 2019): Obtained with-prejudice dismissal of putative class action brought against First American Title Insurance Company alleging unfair business practices and related claims.
  • Incipio, LLC v. C2 Wireless & Accessories LLC (Orange County Super. Ct. 2018): Counsel for manufacturer of mobile phone cases alleging theft of trade secrets and related claims; prevailed on demurrer, resulting in early resolution of claims.
  • In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law & Insurance Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015): Secured multi-million dollar recovery for HSBC Bank from Bernard Madoff Investment Securities feeder funds.
  • In re Herald, Primeo, and Thema, 730 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2013) and 540 Fed. App’x 19 (2d Cir. 2013): Counsel for HSBC entities in a putative class action brought by investors in the Madoff Ponzi scheme. Obtained dismissal of various claims based on preemption by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and forum non conveniens.
  • Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 N.Y.3d 1 (2016): Pro bono counsel for amicus National Association of Social Workers in an appeal regarding child visitation rights for same-sex partners. Amicus brief cited by New York’s highest court in concluding that definition of “parent” must reflect bonds between children and their de facto parents.


College of William & Mary, BA, magna cum laude

Duke University School of Law, JD, magna cum laude
Order of the Coif

Duke University School of Law, LLM


  • California
  • New York


  • US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • US District Court for the Central District of California
  • US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of California
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • US District Court for the Northern District of California
  • US District Court for the Southern District of California
  • US District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of New York