• Site Search
  • Lawyer Search

Gregory B. Koltun

Partner
Los Angeles, (213) 892-5551
Greg
  • Print PDF
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • MoFolder

Greg Koltun is the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office, and maintains a litigation practice with particular expertise in antitrust matters. He has experience litigating cases in state and federal courts throughout the country in a variety of industries and fields, and has significant lead trial experience. He has been involved in the defense of large-scale actions involving major international corporations, including nationwide consumer class actions alleging antitrust violations.

Mr. Koltun also defends many class actions in several fields outside the antitrust context. In the consumer class action area, for example, he handles breach of contract, fraud, false advertising, and unfair trade practice cases involving financial institutions, transportation companies, and insurance companies, among others. Mr. Koltun also regularly handles cases involving financial statement issues, including disputes over complex accounting, auditing, and taxation issues in professional liability cases, and disputes concerning stock and asset purchase agreements.

Mr. Koltun is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and a Board member of the Weingart Center Association, and he was recently recognized by Benchmark Litigation.

Mr. Koltun received his B.A. (magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1984) from Claremont McKenna College. He is a 1987 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, where he was Symposium Editor for the University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Nationwide Antitrust Class Action for Fortune 50 Company
Won motion to dismiss without leave to amend for Fortune 50 company in nationwide antitrust class action, which alleged that client unlawfully tied the sale of loss/damage protection to the sale of ground transportation services. No appeal filed.
Billing Adjustment Class Action
Won dismissal with prejudice of putative nationwide class action for our Fortune 50 client alleging unfair business practices for requiring customers to seek billing adjustments for packages that they processed for shipment but decided not to ship. No appeal filed.
Late-Payment Fees Class Action
With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, won dismissal with prejudice of nationwide class action complaint on the first motion to dismiss in case involving cutting-edge preemption issues arising from the collection of late-payment fees that allegedly exceeded the amounts allowable under state law. No appeal filed.
Antitrust Multi-District Litigation
Won dismissal with prejudice in 51 separate nationwide class actions, which were combined into one MDL proceeding in the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to set fuel surcharge levels on “Less Than Truckload” shipments. On behalf of our Fortune 50 client, we obtained a stay of discovery, and moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had not alleged facts to establish a conspiracy under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Twombly v. Bell Atlantic. The court granted the motion to dismiss and set a very high standard for any subsequent amendment. The plaintiffs concluded that they could not meet that standard, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Fulfillment Services, Inc. v. UPS
528 F.3d 614 (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). Won dismissal, with prejudice, for UPS in nationwide class action related to compliance with tariff requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and transportation fees paid by a large class of shippers over a five-year period. Won affirmance of judgment by Ninth Circuit.
EIJ v. UPS
Argued and won affirmance of summary judgment in favor of UPS on fraud, contract, bad faith, and other claims arising from lost shipment. (233 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2007))
Data Manufacturing, Inc. v. UPS
Argued and won affirmance of order dismissing claims challenging client’s collection of certain charges. Court of appeals held that all claims challenging amount of fees were preempted by federal law and remanded solely for submission of proof that contract at issue called for payment of the charges in dispute. (557 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2009))
Loading...
Loading...