Ruth N. Borenstein

Partner

San Francisco, (415) 268-7348

Download vCard

Education

Yale University (B.A., 1978)
;
Harvard Law School (J.D., 1986)

Practices

Appellate + Supreme Court

Transportation

Class Actions

Bar Admissions

California

Clerkships

Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (1986-1987)

Ruth Borenstein is engaged in a complex litigation practice at both the trial and appellate levels in courts throughout the country. She has successfully defended companies against tort, statutory, and contract claims in a variety of contexts, ranging from consumer class actions alleging overcharges to franchisees' complaints about profitability and franchisor support. She has won dismissals or summary judgments for defendants in numerous cases and has successfully defended those results on appeal.

Ms. Borenstein is one of the country's leading experts on federal preemption of state statutes and common law that affect the pricing and service practices of airlines and motor and air cargo carriers. She has represented carriers and carrier associations in successful challenges to state laws that affect deliveries, including representing carrier associations in victories in the federal district court, First Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court in a case establishing that states may not restrict carriers' deliveries of regulated products. In addition, she regularly represents carriers in defending state law claims related to their pricing or service practices, including class actions.

Ms. Borenstein's work on the case Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association earned her notice as a key practitioner by the National Law Journal, which also named the firm to its annual Appellate Hot List in 2009.

Starke v. UPS

Argued and won affirmance of order dismissing class action complaint seeking to hold carrier liable for late deliveries caused by disruptions in transportation networks due to snow storms. (2d Cir. 2013)

Smartphone Litigation

Member of team that successfully tried a high-profile smartphone case leading to a jury verdict of over $1 billion.

Samica Enterprises v. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc.

Won summary judgment against more than 200 franchisees who sued franchisor and its Fortune 50 parent company for changes to the franchise system and brand. Argued and won affirmance on appeal. (460 Fed. Appx. 664 (9th Cir. 2011))

Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Argued and won affirmance of order dismissing class action complaint alleging that airline violated California statute regulating expiration of gift certificates. (114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010))

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))

Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association

Victory at all three levels of the federal courts, including unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, in high-profile federal preemption challenge to Maine laws regulating deliveries of tobacco products. Won summary judgment, which was affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court. (377 F. Supp 2d 197 (D. Me. 2005), aff’d, 448 F.3d 66, (1st Cir. 2006), aff'd, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008))

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))

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.