Don G. Rushing

Partner

San Diego, (858) 720-5145

Download vCard

Education

U.S. Air Force Academy (B.S., 1970)
;
University of Southern California (M.B.A., 1973)
;
University of California School of Law at Los Angeles (J.D., 1978)

Practices

Trials

Product Liability

Commercial Litigation

Bar Admissions

Colorado
California
Texas

Don Rushing is a trial lawyer and a recognized authority on bet-the-company litigation matters, representing companies in the aviation, consumer product, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries.

Equipped with an M.B.A. in business economics and finance, Mr. Rushing understands the business realities that companies face, and this enables him to develop case strategies that align with clients' business goals. As an Air Force Academy graduate, pilot, and former Air Force officer who served in the Air Force Systems Command research and development community, he is able to provide technically informed legal advice on aviation and product liability issues. As an experienced trial lawyer elected to the prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates, and a certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Mr. Rushing enjoys a well deserved reputation for successful trial results in complex cases.

Mr. Rushing has served as national coordinating and trial counsel for companies in mass disaster, serial tort, and toxic tort matters that involved class action, multijurisdiction, and multidistrict proceedings in more than 25 states. He also represents clients involved in product liability litigation abroad, providing strategic and technical direction in cases dismissed in the United States for forum non conveniens in favor of foreign courts.

Mr. Rushing is recognized by several top publications for his expertise in product liability litigation, with particular emphasis on aviation and consumer product litigation. Most notably, he is ranked as a leading lawyer by Chambers, Legal 500 US, Benchmark Litigation, and Expert Guides. Mr. Rushing also receives recognition from The Best Lawyers in America in the fields of bet-the-company, commercial, and product liability litigation, and from Southern California Super Lawyers in class action and mass tort litigation. In 2010, Daily Journal recognized him as one of California's "Top 100" leading lawyers.

Mr. Rushing received his B.S. degree from the United States Air Force Academy in 1970, his M.B.A. degree from the University of Southern California in 1973, and his J.D. degree from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law in 1978. During law school, he was a member of the UCLA Law Review editorial board. From 1970 to 1975, Mr. Rushing served as a U.S. Air Force officer with the Air Force System Command's Space & Missile Systems Organization. He was honorably discharged with a permanent grade of Captain, and awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal for work in the Advanced Ballistic Reentry Systems program.

Gol Airlines Flight 1907 Litigation

Represented Honeywell International Inc. in a lawsuit involving a mid-air collision between a Boeing 737-800, operated as Gol Airlines Flight 1907, and an Embraer Legacy 600, operated by ExcelAire Services, over the Amazon jungle, Brazil, on September 29, 2006. The accident resulted in the deaths of 154 passengers and crew. Cases were brought in seven districts, and we were successful in consolidating the cases for MDL treatment in the Eastern District of New York. In late July 2008, the motion to dismiss the cases to Brazil for forum non conveniens was granted. The Brazilian carrier is settling the cases with claimants in Brazil. On appeal, the District Court's dismissal of the consolidated actions was affirmed by the Second Circuit. (2009)

Cessna Caravan 208 Icing Accidents

Representing Cessna Aircraft Company as national coordinating counsel in individual personal injury and wrongful death cases pending in various jurisdictions in the United States arising from accidents involving Cessna Caravan 208 aircraft flown in alleged icing conditions. (Ongoing)

Air France 447 Investigation and Litigation

Representing Honeywell International Inc. in litigation arising from the crash of Air France 447. The crash occurred on June 1, 2009, when an Airbus A330-203 went missing over the Atlantic Ocean on a flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France. All 228 passengers and crew perished in the crash. A successful motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California resulted in the dismissal of all actions in favor of a French forum. (Ongoing)

Alaska Airlines Flight 694 (Ginena)

Representing Alaska Airlines in a case brought by a group of first-class passengers who were removed from a flight from Vancouver to Las Vegas after the plane was diverted to Reno on September 20, 2003. We obtained summary judgment of several claims based on the Warsaw Convention. The remaining claims are scheduled for trial in Las Vegas in 2012. (Ongoing)

Cytec Industries

Serving as national coordinating counsel for Cytec in asbestos-containing product cases pending in California, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as the multi-district proceedings in Philadelphia. The cases include personal injury and wrongful death claims by persons alleging exposure in the workplace to asbestos fibers. (Ongoing)

Flash Airlines Flight 604 Litigation

Representing Honeywell International Inc. in a lawsuit arising out of the crash of a Boeing 737-300, operated as Flash Airlines Flight 604, into the Red Sea off Sharm-El Sheikh, Egypt, on January 3, 2004. The accident resulted in the deaths of 148 passengers and crew. Cases were initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by some of the decedents' estates. Along with co-counsel for Boeing, our firm was successful in having the case dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of a French forum. Approximately 600 plaintiffs then filed actions in a French trial court in Bobigny seeking compensation for the deaths of approximately 130 decedents. Plaintiffs' challenges to the jurisdiction of the French courts, including an appeal to the French supreme court, have been unsuccessful. (Ongoing)

Voorhis v. Cessna

Represented Cessna Aircraft Company in a crash of a Cessna 208B in Oak Glen, CA on March 28, 2006. The plaintiff's initial settlement demand sought hundreds of millions in damages. Several attempts to mediate the case to a settlement before trial were not successful. Ten days before trial, Cessna made a statutory offer to compromise, which was rejected. Trial commenced on October 5, 2009. After a six week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on November 12, 2009 finding that the decedent was solely responsible for causing the accident. (2009)

Columbia Helicopters Shasta-Trinity National Forest Crash

Representing Columbia Helicopters, a helicopter operator and maintenance facility, which performed maintenance work on the accident helicopter's fuel control system, in claims arising from the crash of a Sikorsky S-61 helicopter in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Nine people were fatally injured and four survived. The helicopter was transporting firefighters when the accident occurred. Cases pending in three separate federal courts were assigned to the United States District Court, District of Oregon for MDL proceedings, resulting in the resolution of eleven of the claims. A separate state action involving the remaining two claims is set for trial in Portland in 2012. (Ongoing)

Alaska Airlines Flight 261.

Represented Alaska Airlines as lead trial counsel in multi-district litigation involving wrongful death and survival claims by heirs and estates of the 88 passengers and crew who perished in the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 on January 31, 2000 near Point Mugu, California. Intensive fact and expert discovery led to a series of successful motions to remove punitive damages from the case, limit theories of recovery against the airline under the Warsaw Convention, stipulate liability to remove potentially harmful evidence from the trials, and prepare and try damages claims. Trial commenced in the MDL court in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in ten wrongful death cases leading to settlements during trial of all but one of the remaining cases. After remand to the Central District of California and transfer back to the Northern District of California for trial, the remaining case settled. (2005)