Gregory B. Koltun

Gregory B. Koltun

Education

Claremont McKenna College (B.A., 1984)
University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 1987)

Bar Admissions

California

Clerkships

Hon. Harry L. Hupp, U.S. District Court, C.D. California (1987-1988)

Greg Koltun is a litigation partner in the firm's Los Angeles office, with a particular focus on complex commercial litigation and antitrust matters. He has experience litigating cases in state and federal courts and before arbitration tribunals 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.

In the consumer class action area, for example, he has handled 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 accounting issues, including disputes over complex accounting, auditing and taxation issues in professional liability cases. He routinely handles disputes arising from stock and asset purchase agreements. He has extensive experience in resolving post-closing working capital adjustment and breach of representation and warranty disputes.

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 and Phi Beta Kappa, in 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.
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.

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.