John Nadolenco

 John Nadolenco is a high-stakes litigator and trial lawyer who focuses on class-action defense, bet-the-company cases, and trials. In just the past few years, John served as lead trial lawyer on five trials—all resulting in wins for our clients—and successfully defended a slew of putative class actions.

For instance, John has helped his clients at trial by:

• Obtaining a complete defense verdict after a month-and-a-half jury trial in a class action where the plaintiffs sought over $500 million in damages;
• Obtaining a complete defense verdict at trial for a car company that faced claims that it improperly acquired a competitor’s technology for use in electric vehicles;
• Securing a $121 million dollar recovery from a foreign company after a trial that the trial judge said included two “Perry Mason moments”;
• Securing a defense win after a two-phase bench trial where the plaintiff sought over $100 million in damages;
• Representing the entire automobile industry in a trial that challenged the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ voter-passed initiative that requires car companies to share vehicle data telematically with drivers and independent repair shops
• Obtaining a permanent injunction—after a lengthy trial—on behalf of the railway industry preempting and precluding enforcement of an air-quality district’s laws.

Beyond trial successes, John and his team have obtained dismissals in many putative class actions and otherwise avoided class certification, as well as prevailed in dozens of other cases. Many of John’s cases are high-profile. In addition to those mentioned above, John was lead counsel in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which the United States Supreme Court decided in our client’s favor, making it harder for plaintiffs to bring no-injury lawsuits. John also represented the country of Brazil in its effort to recapture the infamous 840-pound Bahia Emerald—a case that has made international and national headlines.

• In re Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litigation (US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan). Represented General Motors in a slew of nationwide class action lawsuits—since consolidated—alleging claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and violation of various state consumer-protection laws arising out of the recalls of over 100,000 electric vehicles due to the risk of fire in batteries manufactured by various LG entities. We succeeded in consolidating the cases in our desired forum, shrinking plaintiffs’ claims through a motion to dismiss and placing added barriers to class certification by winning a motion to compel several plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration. We ultimately negotiated a favorable class settlement with minimal discovery, while also providing advice and guidance as GM navigated the battery recalls and negotiated cost recovery, alter-ego, and related issues with its battery suppliers (and co-defendants). Public reports state that LG funded the settlement.
• Chevy Bolt Opt-Out Cases. Defending General Motors in over 1,000 opt-out cases around the country. Succeeded in consolidating hundreds of the cases in the Eastern District of Michigan. Those cases are ongoing.
• VLF Automotive, LLC v. Karma Automotive, LLC (California Superior Court). Secured a complete trial victory for Karma Automotive in a trade secrets lawsuit. Plaintiff VLF Automotive claimed that Karma gained confidential information about VLF’s plans to develop an electric luxury Humvee and used that information to its benefit. We systematically dismantled VLF’s claims—first through a successful motion for summary adjudication and then at trial on the remaining claims.
• Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Campbell (US District Court for the District of Massachusetts). As lead trial counsel, represented the entire automaker industry in challenging the constitutionality of a state ballot initiative that requires car companies to share data generated by their vehicles. We challenged the constitutionality of a Massachusetts ballot initiative on the basis that it requires OEMs to dismantle cybersecurity protections, thereby creating safety defects. We obtained a four-year stay of enforcement of that initiative before the trial court ultimately denied our preemption claims given the absence of a NHTSA cybersecurity regulation. That decision is under appeal in the First Circuit.
• Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Frey (US District Court for the District of Maine). As lead trial counsel, representing the automotive OEM trade association in its challenge to the constitutionality of a state ballot initiative that, similar to the Massachusetts initiative, requires car companies to share data generated by their vehicles. We challenged the constitutionality of the Maine initiative because its enforcement is premised upon the Maine attorney general’s establishing a third-party rulemaking entity that does not yet exist. After we filed the lawsuit, the Maine legislature amended the relevant law to correct the issue identified in the lawsuit, and that amendment is waiting action from the Maine governor.

• Benchmark Litigation - California Litigation Star and Litigation Star (Class Action/Labor and Employment)
• Law360 MVP for in the Transportation Industry (multiple years)
• LABJ "Leader of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys” (multiple years)
• Litigation Trailblazer, The National Law Journal
• "Leading Commercial Litigator," California Daily Journal.
• Law360 “Transportation Group of the Year” (Mayer Brown’s OEM Team)

• American University Washington College of Law, JD, summa cum laude
• University of Arizona, BA, summa cum laude

• Californie

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