Jordan M. Schwartz

Mr. Schwartz successfully has represented an array of product manufacturers at both the trial and appellate levels. His briefings have resulted in the dismissal of multiple product liability and consumer fraud actions on the pleadings, at summary judgment and at the class-certification stage. Mr. Schwartz also successfully has defended pharmaceutical companies in litigation commenced by state attorneys general alleging violations of consumer protection laws.

In addition to representing companies in proceedings involving pharmaceutical and consumer products, Mr. Schwartz has represented the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and the Product Liability Advisory Council, drafting amicus briefs on their behalf in cases affecting American businesses and product manufacturers. In September 2021, he provided expert testimony on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee regarding third-party litigation funding. He also has authored articles and white papers pertaining to various litigation reform measures, including proposals related to multidistrict litigation, class actions and third-party litigation funding. Mr. Schwartz has written extensively on developments in the law governing personal jurisdiction and other aspects of civil procedure.

Representative cases include:

• a Fortune 100 company in multidistrict litigation involving medical devices and in multi-district litigation and various state courts involving cosmetic products, including a case in which the Illinois Supreme Court quashed a trial subpoena directed at the company’s CEO;
• a Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company in state attorneys general enforcement actions and consumer class actions;
• a Fortune 100 company in a putative nationwide consumer fraud class action involving an over-the-counter medication, which was dismissed;
• a manufacturer of roofing shingles in a case that was dismissed at summary judgment and another case that was dismissed after class certification was denied;
• a manufacturer of welding rods in an appeal of a plaintiff verdict, which was reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court;
• a manufacturer of a popular lip balm product in a putative consumer fraud class action, which was dismissed; and
• a pro bono representation in connection with the unlawful imprisonment and supervised release of a D.C. inmate.