Tammy A. Tsoumas

Antitrust, Government and Regulatory

• Represented Taiwanese airline in a multidistrict putative class action alleging that domestic and foreign airlines conspired to fix prices and surcharges on transpacific flights. Kirkland won a motion for summary judgment in part regarding the filed rate doctrine and Tammy argued the appeal on behalf of the joint defense in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Represented Japanese electronics manufacturer in a pending putative class action alleging that certain electronics manufacturers conspired to fix and stabilize the prices of inductors.
• Represented DIRECTV in several antitrust class actions, currently pending in the Central District of California, brought by residential and commercial subscribers of NFL Sunday Ticket. Plaintiffs allege that they have been overcharged for the televised presentation of out-of-market NFL games due to the NFL’s and DIRECTV’s agreement to exclusively broadcast out-of-market games through the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Plaintiffs claim that the exclusive agreement between DIRECTV and the NFL violated both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
• Represented Taiwanese airline in a multidistrict putative class action litigation alleging that global air cargo carriers conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices by coordinating certain surcharges and agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of surcharges. A favorable settlement was finalized for the client.
• Represented glass manufacturer in multidistrict litigation proceedings in which plaintiff alleges a price-fixing cartel among flat glass manufacturers.
• Represented DIRECTV in a class action antitrust matter regarding out-of-market programming for Major League Baseball games, with fans arguing that MLB’s long-standing policy of only selling league-wide cable and online game packages and its territorial blackout policies ran afoul of federal antitrust law. A settlement was reached between the parties right before trial was set to begin in January 2016 in the Southern District of New York.
• Represented rental car company in a putative class action lawsuit relating to passenger car rentals at California airport locations. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant rental car companies violated federal antitrust law by allegedly agreeing to pass on a California tourism assessment fee and airport concession fees to renters of passenger cars at California airport locations. The parties reached a class-wide settlement, and the district court entered final approval. Certain objectors to the settlement filed appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but subsequently dismissed them.
• Represented rental car company in a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Washington brought under Section 7 of the Clayton Act arising out of the rental car company’s proposed acquisition of another rental car company. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction alleging that the proposed acquisition was anticompetitive and would cause injury to their businesses and to individual car renters throughout the United States. Tammy and the Kirkland team argued that the claims were not valid given the Federal Trade Commission’s ongoing review of the proposed acquisition. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff did not appeal.
• Represented patent holder in litigation where competitor was prosecuting federal and state claims for alleged monopolization, Walker-Process violations, exclusive dealing, tying and other antitrust theories.
• Represented Hollywood movie studio in antitrust litigation filed by distributor alleging a vertical conspiracy to boycott.

Toxic Tort/Wrongful Death & Product Liability Litigation

• Representing company in a toxic tort matter involving allegations that plaintiff’s cancer was caused by exposure to purported emissions from the facility.
• Representing company in a matter involving allegations that the company intentionally interfered with a contract for the sale of a multimillion-dollar property in Southern California.
• Representing auto part manufacturer in multidistrict litigation alleging breach of warranty, fraud and other claims based on allegedly defective airbag control units.
• Represented The Boeing Company and Aerojet Rocketdyne in a case filed by two plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage arising from purported exposure to radioactive emissions in violation of federal regulations. After one of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed his claims, Kirkland moved to dismiss the remaining plaintiff’s claims. In a published decision, the Court found that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Price-Anderson Act and that plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim of excess radiation exposure under federal regulations.
• Represented a chemical company in multiple cases involving alleged injuries resulting from alleged asbestos-contaminated talc.
• Represented commercial airplane manufacturer in a lawsuit alleging product liability claims resulting from an alleged aviation incident.
• Represented company in multiple toxic tort cases involving a couple facilities wherein plaintiffs allege that certain chemicals caused their cancers.

Other Commercial Litigation

• Representing real estate entity in post-judgment collection proceedings, involving claims of fraudulent transfers, alter ego and veil piercing theories.
• Represented real estate entities in a lawsuit brought by a Homeowners Association alleging various claims, including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
• Represented gasoline retailer in class action lawsuit brought on behalf of consumers alleging unfair competition and misrepresentation associated with grade of residual fuel in fuel dispensers.
• Represented insurance wholesale brokerage firm in dispute over enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment agreements.
• Represented affiliates of a global bank in multiple actions brought by institutional investors alleging federal and state securities law violations arising out of the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. After nearly five years of litigation, the parties reached a no-fault settlement resulting in the dismissal of all claims. The settlement came on the heels of a successful summary judgment ruling, which reduced plaintiffs’ potential damages by hundreds of millions of dollars.