21st Annual Federal Court Boot Camp: The Nuts and Bolts (CA) [Two-Part Webinar] (Watch Live or via OnDemand Streaming)

Agenda

Part 1: Tuesday, May 6, 2025
12:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.

Judges will comment throughout the program.

12:45 p.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Intro to Federal Court

• Practical differences between State Court and Federal Court Practice
• Material differences among California’s Federal Districts
• Highlights from the Local Rules and local practice
• Rule 1

 1:15 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.
Complaints, Answers, Removal and Remand

• Plausibility Standard: Rule 8’s Short and Plain Statement
• Forms of Complaints and Answers/Defenses
• Defenses vs. Affirmative Defenses
• Practice Pointers and Pitfalls
• Removal
• Remand
• Case Management Reports
• Rule 16.1: Pretrial Discovery Conference

2:15 p.m. – 2:25 p.m.
10 Min Break

2:25 p.m. – 3:25 p.m.
Rule 12

• Top ten tips for drafting Rule 12(b)(6) motions, responses, and replies
• How to enhance the effectiveness of memoranda addressing motions to dismiss
• How to address procedural issues that frequently arise when briefing motions to dismiss
• Additional Rule 12 motions discussed

3:25 p.m. – 3:35 p.m.
10 Min BREAK

3:35 p.m. – 4:35 p.m.
Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJs), Ex Parte Motions and Injunctive Relief

• Drafting
• Timing
• Tips
• What judges want, need and don’t want to see
• Oral Argument
• Ex Parte Motions
• TROs and Preliminary Injunctions

4:35 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
Final Questions / Comments 

Part 2: Thursday, May 8, 2025
12:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. 

Judges will comment throughout the program.

12:45 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Discovery & eDiscovery

• CM/ECF brief overview/advice
• Interrogatories and Requests for Production, including the differences between state and federal
• Basic cross examination skills
• Ways to expedite discovery
• How to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case after reviewing discovery
• 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  • Scope of discovery / proportionality
  • Requests for production and responses
  • Failure to preserve / sanctions
  • How courts have interpreted them
• eDiscovery
  • Overview and considerations
  • Sources and preservation
  • Authentication
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 502
  • Strategies and cost considerations

2:00 p.m. – 2:10 p.m.
10 Min BREAK

2:10 p.m. – 3:10 p.m.
Depositions

• Online depos
• Federal v. State differences
• Subpoenas & affidavits
• Deadlines
• Strategy and deciding whom to depose
• Taking good depositions
• Making effective use of depositions at trial or for settlement 

3:10 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
5 Min break

3:15 – 3:55
Pre-Trial Matters

• Pretrial Conference and Order – FRCP 16
• Trial Briefs
• Pretrial Statement
• Motions in Limine
• Client and witness prep.
• Your Jury
  • What is unique about Jury Selection in Federal Court?
  • Questionnaire and Voir Dire
  • Jury Instructions in Federal Court
  • Jury Verdict Forms in Federal Court

3:55 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
Your Trial

• Introduction of Exhibits, including foundation and admissibility
• Evidentiary Objections
• Direct and Cross-Examinations
  • Purpose, audience and format requirements
  • Basic direct examination skills
  • Basic cross examination skills
  • Strategies and advice
  • Mistakes to avoid

Date/Time/Location

Two- Part Webinar

Dates:
Part 1: Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Part 2: Thursday, May 8, 2025

Times for both sessions:
12:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Pacific Time

We will send your login details and handout materials a few days before your program.

Testimonials

“Terrific program. It’s been a while since I handled federal court cases, and this has been an excellent brush up and update, plus the tips from very experienced practitioners are invaluable.” – Linda M. Battram, Esq.

“I was able to glean some valuable information about the federal process from experienced attorneys and active/former judges. The judges were definitely a valuable resource. The program was good, while lengthy, a large array of topics was covered and it was generally pretty focused and did not feel like a chore to get through. Once again, having insight from the diverse panel was quite enriching.” – William Lee, Esq.

“Great review coupled with valuable perspective and strategic advice. Very helpful especially offering a narrow look into how things play out specifically in CA.” – Sasha Dismuke, Esq.

“Good variety of panelists, good mix of opinion and specific procedures.” – Thomas McCarrick, Esq.

“I enjoyed the practical nature of the presentation and the back and forth discussion. The panel put together was an excellent combination of different experiences. I loved hearing from the Judges, who were both practitioners, the clerk who generally deals with the various motions, and the various attorneys from both sides plaintiff and defense.” – Cynthia D. Vargas, Esq.

“Information is succinct. Easy to understand. Lots of really good information. Nice to get insight from practitioners as well as a judge’s perspective.” – Dawn M. Reitsma, Esq.

“Excellent program — very good, practical advice.” – Sean Ryan Broderick, Esq.

“Good overall information about federal court practice. Helpful insights and tips.” – John P. Yasuda, Esq.

“Great to hear insights from judges and experienced practitioners, and a very experienced law clerk with private practice experience. The Q& A sessions were great to hear.” – Tracy Woo, Esq.

“Excellent and diverse speakers. The two judges really gave credibility to the topic.” – Derrick James McKain, Esq.

“This was one of the most interesting, helpful and useful MCLE programs I have ever attended! Good coverage of practical topics.” – Harvie Schrieber, Esq.

“It was a great refresher on the federal rules and the panelists had great anecdotes from personal experience. My federal practice is heating up so a refresher was needed.” – Page Allinson, Esq.

“This is a great survey course regarding differences between state and federal court. Judge Olguin’s comments always included practical advice that is extremely helpful and adds to the topics substantially. He is great. Judge Segal had the best, most substantive interjections. I’d go to any discussions or lectures led by her. Excellent!” – Grace Lau, Esq.

“Invaluable to have the judge’s advice and opinions.” – Genevieve Coyle, Esq.

“Highlighting differences between State and Federal Court procedures in California was extremely helpful.”

“It was a really good seminar.  Very good. Thank you. It provided me very valuable assistance with the Rule 16 and 26 issues.” – Olivia Bissell, Esq.

“Great program! Very informative and interesting. Looking forward to future seminars.” – Iveta Ovsepyan, Esq.

“I am a new lawyer. This was a great course to help put many things in focus. Gave me great advice.” – Jeshawna R. Harrell, Esq.

“Great outlines for future reference. Concise presentation format. Very well done. Knowledgeable speakers.” – Michael Caballero, Esq.

“I am fully satisfied. This was a great primer for practicing in Federal Court. This was one of the best seminars that I’ve been to in my 13 years of practicing law. It makes me want to never go to state court ever again.” – Richard Jefferson, Esq.

“I didn’t know much about federal civil practice, so it was nice to get a start to finish overview. It wasn’t overwhelming. It was a good procedural overview with practical tips.” – Kree D. Filer, Esq.

“The panelists covered every important topic in-depth. Thank you for having this seminar!” – Ari Kaufman, Esq.

“Good recap of basics of federal practice with useful pointers. Proper depth given the breadth of subjects.” – Matthew Roman, Esq.

“Engaging speakers and course material was presented in a concise and clear way.”

“Great topics, excellent speakers.” – Brittany Toth, Esq.

“Great seminar and very useful materials/handouts.” – Andrew Browning, Esq. 

“Very informative.” – W. Ethan McCallum, Esq.  

“Excellent overview of issues practicing in federal court’s three common pitfalls.” – Christopher Young, Esq.  

“I really enjoyed listening to the practitioner’s trial tips.”

“Very informative and definitely worth your time.” – Jesse Ruiz, Esq.

“As a state court criminal defense attorney, I found the review of FRCP helpful.”

“I specifically enjoyed the practical experiences shared by the presenters.” – Joe Anglin, Esq.

“I thought the program was informative, particularly when discussing motion strategy.” – Paul Thomas, Esq.

“A really good webinar, with great speakers.” – Luca Prisciandaro, Esq.

“I found the program very helpful as presenters shared personal experiences.” – Joseph V. Anglin, Esq.

“Excellent and well-rounded panel.” – Sean Ryan Broderick, Esq.

“I like the resources that were provided by the speakers; great, clear, concise presentations; a great boot camp for fed court practice.” 

“Very interesting.” – Francisco A. Suarez, Esq.

“Excellent! Will be back! Everyone was great!” – David A. Wolf, Esq.

“Completely satisfied. This was outstanding!” – Nancy Woods, Esq.

“I like having the law clerk and judges’ perspectives.”

“Great program! Really informative!” – Deborah Gettleman, Esq.

“Loved it!” – Jugpreet Mann, Esq.

“All speakers were good – especially the judge and the law clerk.” – Ann Hull, Esq.

“Great program. Thanks!” – Sean Ryan Broderick, Esq.

“Great to hear the perspective of a clerk. I found the voire dire tips to be very helpful. Loved the 8 components for opening statement and the points on evidence and cross-examination.” – Michelle Rahban, Esq.

“A very good program. All the speakers were helpful and informative.” – Richard Stoll, Esq.

“Very helpful and instructive.” – Gregory Yu, Esq.

“Great refresher course and helpful practical advice.” – Matthew Peters, Esq.

“Presentation was well-done and informative. The insights of the panel members was enlightening.” – Joseph A. Gordon, Esq.

“As a mother and a lawyer, I felt very respected and valued by Pincus. The rallying cry for equality for women is ‘The future is female.’ Well, that future looks like the way Venus and Grace treat your customers.” – Maha Ibrahim, Esq.

“It was great! Thank you!” – Ashleigh Musser, Esq.

“Very good speakers.” – Susan Horst, Esq.

“Well done, head to toe.” – John Cammack, Esq.

“This was a well-done presentation. Very informative.” – Philip John Downs Jr, Esq.

“The entire panel did a great job and delivered well.” –Tom Borchard, Esq.

“I was very satisfied!” – Courtney Arbucci, Esq.

“Highly satisfied. Hearing from multiple clerks was helpful.” – Tim O’Connor, Esq.

“Very satisfied – gave me what I wanted. Basic info with strategic uses.” – Joseph Charles, Esq.

“Very good, candid advice.” – Daniel Zarchy, Esq.

“Great job. Very informative and well presented.” – Jonathan T. Dawson, Esq.

“I really enjoyed the program and the speakers. Having a judicial clerk was also extremely valuable.” – Dana Ulise, Esq.

“Very good tune-up for me – I haven’t  practiced in federal court in 10 years.”

“The program was incredibly helpful.”

“Offering differing viewpoints of each party in an action is very informative.”

“Great speakers. I thoroughly enjoyed the information.” – Marty Nicholson, Esq.

“Excellent.” – Megan Irish, Esq.

“Very practical information. Very helpful for negotiating the federal arena.” – Helene Friedman, Esq.

“A great primer for both new and experienced attorneys.” – Peter Ton, Esq.

“This was helpful, especially as an introduction to federal practice. I wish I had taken this course a few months early, I feel like I absorbed much of this through trial and error in the last few months.” – Matthew Slentz, Esq.

“Great CLE.”  – James Howard, Esq.

“Great presentation! Very informative!” – Kari Martin Higgins, Esq.

“Excellent.” – John P. Yasuda, Esq.

“Great information, very helpful.” – Oianka McElmurry, Esq.

“Good review and  run-down of the issues.” – Daniel Marsh, Esq.

“What a great concept to have the clerks conduct the seminar! So informative!” – Neyleen Beljajev, Esq.

“All the faculty were top notch – very professional and informative and competent.” – Paul Carreras, Esq.

“Good information regarding the different FRCP. Very Satisfied.” – Michelle J. Smythe, Esq.

“This was a good re-introduction; Very informative and insightful for someone looking to learn the ins & outs of Federal Court.” – Eric Wills, Esq.

“I was very pleased with this program. It is definitely worth the money and travel!” – Christina Milligan

“Very informative and concise.:” – Andrea Marcus, Esq.

“Important subject for practitioners in Federal Court. Good topic, good speakers.” – D. David Steele, Esq.

“Very enjoyable and knowledgeable seminar! Thank you!” – Aman A. Lal, Esq.

“Excellent program.” – Kori Macksoud, Esq.

“The speakers were good at recognizing the variety of lawyers in the audience.” – Phyra McCandless, Esq.

“I’m new to Federal Court. This program offered a good introduction.” – Katherine Broderick, Esq.

“Each speaker gave great examples…and I appreciated the fact that there were attorneys representing the plaintiff side and the defense side. I appreciated the insight of both judges. It was great to have them attend! This is a great seminar for Federal Court beginners or a refresher for seasoned veterans in Federal Court.” – Nicole Dennewitz, Paralegal

“An excellent program.” – Barbara Reardon, Esq.

“I am no longer afraid to practice in federal court.”

“It was a good boot camp covering the basics, and it gave me a good insight into judicial thinking.”

“I enjoyed the CLE program and found the dialogue between the speakers very informative.”

“Very good – no boring, droning lecturing. Kept me engaged throughout. Women and a diverse panel – yay! Thanks for a great program.”

“The program was great. It was just the kind of ‘refresher’ I was looking for. I appreciated each speaker’s stories and tips. Hearing stories is such a great way to learn and remember.”

“The war stories and practitioners’ points are honestly the most helpful parts.”

“Good variety of subject matter and perspectives.”

“Information is succinct. Easy to understand. Lots of really good information. Nice to get insight from practitioners as well as a judge’s perspective.”

“Another very thorough crash-course put on by Pincus. Very helpful!”

“Part 2 was great, just like Part 1. Each panelist had unique experience and perspective that I appreciated.”

“I like the resources that were provided by the speakers; great, clear, concise presentations; a great boot camp for fed court practice.” 

“Really outstanding speakers and topics.”  

“Thoroughly covered the topics I was interested in, speakers communicated very clearly and were very knowledgeable.” 

“Overall time was well spent as a refresher for us gray hairs or an introduction for newbies.” 

“Because I’ve just started litigating and I’m in both state and federal court, the distinctions between state and federal court practice were the most helpful.”

“Very informative & well presented.”

“Enjoyed listening to each speaker and their experience.”

“Wonderful insight from highly experienced persons. I liked that it was conversational with various people chiming in. That doesn’t always work in these trainings, but it was well executed with this group at least. Kept things interesting whereas sometimes more structured trainings can get dry.”

“A very good program. I’ve been practicing for 12 years, but recently transitioned from almost all state court cases to federal court cases. I was worried the program might be geared towards brand new attorneys, but I found most of the information helpful.”

“Great speakers, very informative and comprehensive.”

“I found the program very helpful as presenters shared personal experiences
Was excellent and very informative.”

“All speakers were very knowledgeable. I appreciated hearing from the judge’s perspective, as well as Chaya’s as a Plaintiffs’ attorney vs. the other attorneys.”

“Judge Segal’s input to the panel’s advice was always welcome and appreciated. Laurie Smith consistently and effectively provided insightful remarks throughout the day. She’s an excellent panelist.”

“Today was EXCELLENT, thank you!”

““Great – very valuable and practical advice (particularly to hear the judges’ thoughts on particular motions, standards, etc.).”

“Speakers and materials were very knowledgeable and interesting.”

“It was great!”

“Very helpful, practical, and all-encompassing.”  

“Good practical information.”

“Fabulous.”

“Good mix of Bench, plaintiff and defense bar perspectives.”

“Everything was great and very informative.”

“I specifically enjoyed the practical experiences shared by the presenters.”

“Great speakers, very informative.”

“I thought the program was informative, particularly when discussing motion strategy.”

“This was helpful, especially as an introduction to federal practice. I wish I had taken this course a few months early, I feel like I absorbed much of this through trial and error in the last few months.”

“Very helpful to have judges’ perspectives along with practitioners.”

“I think the program is great and does what it needs to do.”

“I thought the content was a great overview. I really liked the case-specific examples and pointers that the speakers drew on during their discussion.”

“The content was excellent and the speakers were outstanding.”

“Felt it was extremely useful and met every expectation.”

“Great program!”

“I thought the program and presentation were excellent. We just filed a Rule 26 Disclosure today and I’m feeling pretty confident about what we did after listening to this. I enjoyed all the speakers but especially appreciated the observations of the Honorable Karen Stevenson.”

“I really enjoyed the advice about the tone of federal courts generally, and also how to prepare witnesses.”

“I thought all the speakers today were excellent.”

“I thought the program was really interesting–especially the first part of the day. I really enjoyed hearing from Judge Corley and from Plaintiffs’ side firms. I also found the tips to be very helpful. It was a good overview of material.”

“This program is excellent for its target audience.”

“Thank you for your hard work!”

“I practice in federal court regularly and was hoping to get some practice tips to improve my representation and also to confirm or correct the lessons I have learned in practice – the program did exactly that.”

“It was a beautiful program and I learnt a lot. There was a lot of theory that I enjoyed.”

“It was a lot of great information.”

“I think the program was very informative and well put together. It was also nice to have everyone’s perspectives on various topics. I think the course was very thorough. I really appreciated more of the practical tips.”

“The content was presented well.”

“Very helpful tips and information.”

“Great topics, excellent speakers.”

“Very informative and engaging. Great speakers.”

“Very informative.”

“Excellent balance of substantive information, personal observations & idiosyncrasies of bench potentially relevant to practitioners.”

“The program was very informative and the speakers have a great rapport with each other.”

All speakers were good – especially the judge and the law clerk.”

“Very detailed. Thank you.”

“Very useful, practical information.”

“Very well done.”

“Very well done. Good speakers.”

“Great content. Really enjoyed Judge Stevenson.”

“I enjoyed the program, very informative.”

“Very informative. Good.”

“A very helpful presentation.”

“Very informative.”

“I found the program very helpful as an overview to litigation and many of the topics discussed have application in state court as well.”

“Excellent!”

“Great!”

“Great mix of judges, clerks, and practitioners.”

“Excellent training!”

“Appreciate that everything advertised is what I got.”

“Thank you. Another excellent program.”

“Very informative and practical advice; good for new lawyers.”

“Excellent training.”

“If this faculty is an example of Pincus, I’ll always attend. Great work!”

“Very helpful! Materials are nice.”

“Speakers were knowledgeable and relatable. Very informative.”

“Good insight. Good comments.”

“I found this a very helpful nuts and bolts for new attorneys.”

“The information was helpful and the materials (checklists in particular) will be useful here on out.”

“Great speakers.”

“Outlines were extremely effective.”

“Great program.”

“Best CLE course I have ever attended!”

“I enjoyed the individual tips, stories & examples – makes it easier to remember procedures.”

“Great program. Law clerks’ views are most valuable.”

“Appreciated the FRCP updates: this was the best part of the program.”

“I practice class action law, so I enjoyed hearing about the speaker’s experience.”

“All excellent speakers – both in content and delivery.”

“Very happy. Not many CLE’s specialize in federal law. I wish I had taken this course earlier!”

“Motions presentation was worth the entire price. Humor works! Anecdotes were great!”

“Great Job! An excellent course. Informative presentations!”

“Very good program – the law clerk perspective should be heard by all lawyers.”

“Great practical advice.”

“I liked how Chaya M. Mandelbaum provided a deposition strategies outline in addition to the slides.”

“I most appreciated comments from judges and law clerks of federal courts as to insights of inner workings.”

“Very good program.”

“Excellent.”

“I learned more about federal court civil procedure than any other class I have taken.”

“Good speakers.”

“Very good.”

“Liked the updates regarding the current situation.”

“Great program!”

“Very informative.”

Faculty

Hon. Fernando Olguin
District Court Judge
U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Judge Olguin began his legal career in 1989 as a judicial law clerk for a federal judge in the District of Arizona. In 1991, he was selected to be a member of the United States Attorney General’s Honors Program, where he worked in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. After leaving the Department of Justice in 1994, Judge Olguin joined the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF”) as the National Director of the Education Program. In 1995, Judge Olguin became a name partner in the Pasadena-based law firm, Traber, Voorhees & Olguin, a firm that litigated housing and employment cases.

Judge Olguin was appointed to serve as a United States Magistrate Judge in 2001. In December 2012, Judge Olguin was confirmed as a United States District Judge. He maintains his chambers in Los Angeles.

After 18 years as a United States Magistrate Judge with the Central District of California, including four years as the Chief Magistrate Judge, Hon. Suzanne H. Segal (Ret.) joins Signature Resolution as a mediator, arbitrator and Special Master/Discovery Referee. During her tenure on the federal bench, Judge Segal presided over numerous trials, evidentiary hearings, motions and discovery conferences involving diverse subject matter. Judge Segal served as the settlement judge in hundreds of cases, settling business and insurance disputes, patent, trademark and copyright actions, and employment, civil rights, and tort cases. Judge Segal handled a wide range of motions and settlements arising out of class actions, particularly in the wage and hour context. 

Judge Segal has broad experience in securities litigation, including matters brought by private investors and the SEC. In addition, Judge Segal has extensive experience in matters involving the False Claims Act and related actions involving the healthcare industry. 

Judge Segal has served as a Special Master or Discovery Referee in cases involving the False Claims Act, mass tort and insurance claims, patent litigation, and product liability claims. 

Before her appointment to the bench, Judge Segal served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division of the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office for 12 years. As an AUSA, Judge Segal handled a variety of cases, including contract, employment, civil rights, Medicare reimbursement and tort claims. She also brought consumer and civil rights actions on behalf of the Department of Justice. From 1999 to 

2002, she served as the Chief of Civil Appeals for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Prior to serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Judge Segal was a civil litigator at Dewey, Ballantine and Adams, Duque and Hazeltine.

Judge Segal has also served as a lecturer in Law at UCLA School of Law and Loyola Law School. 

Judge Segal is known for her work ethic and persistent dedication to reach a positive result for the parties. 

Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore was appointed in February 2012. Since then, she has presided over a wide variety of consent cases involving contracts, commercial law, civil rights, employment, patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, securities, administrative and constitutional law, immigration, environmental, and personal injury. She also conducts settlement conferences and manages discovery, including in nationwide class actions and multi-district litigation. Judge Westmore currently serves on the court’s Personnel Committee, co-leads the court’s Convictions Alternatives Program (“CAP”), and presides over CAP Aftercare Court, which follows CAP graduates for the first year of their probation and as otherwise needed.

Judge Westmore’s legal career began as a law clerk with the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, before obtaining her first attorney position at an Oakland-based boutique law firm specializing in plaintiffs’ civil rights litigation.

She joined the Oakland City Attorney’s Office in 1999 as a Deputy City Attorney. During her 13-year tenure with the City, she advised City agencies and served as both a trial attorney and a law and motion attorney, where she filed suit on behalf of the City and defended the City and its employees on a wide range of matters in federal and state trial and appellate courts, including civil rights, personal injury, inverse condemnation, labor and employment, and complex litigation. Judge Westmore has been publicly recognized by community organizations, the City of Oakland, and elected officials for her contributions and service to the City of Oakland and its residents.

Prior to taking the bench, Judge Westmore served as President-Elect of the Alameda County Bar Association (“ACBA”), and volunteered for the ACBA Volunteer Legal Services Corporation’s Pro Bono Program representing low-income individuals in family law cases. She also served as the President of the Earl Warren American Inn of Court in 2017. Judge Westmore has been a member of the Charles Houston Bar Association (“CHBA”) since 1998, and she received the CHBA Guardian of Justice Award in 2018. She also received the Judicial Excellence Award from Black Women Lawyers of Northern California in 2022.

She received her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley and her J.D. from the University of San Francisco, School of Law, all while working full-time and being a wife and mother of two young children. As a law student, Judge Westmore served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong.  In 2023, Judge Westmore became an adjunct professor at USF School of Law, where she teaches a judicial externship course. Previously, Judge Westmore taught Honors Evidence at the Golden Gate University School of Law.

Joe Farris is a seasoned trial attorney and trusted advisor to technology companies based in San Francisco who represents clients in a broad range of business and intellectual property disputes. He has significant experience in state and federal courts, private arbitration, and a variety of cross-border disputes.

His clients often face emerging legal issues at the intersections of law and technology, including trade secret, copyright, trademark, patent, and unfair competition litigation. He has recently represented a medical technology company in federal court litigation against an internationally-based competitor that sought to raid the client’s U.S. operational staff and intellectual property. Before that, he defended an international electronics manufacturer against parallel federal and state litigation asserting trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement.

His work frequently involves complex forensic investigations of digital evidence in disputes and litigation involving trade secret theft, source code copying, hacking and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), subpoenas for Internet content and communications, online defamation and harassment, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), works-for-hire disputes, and use of web-crawling bots. Joe also has experience in a variety of business litigation matters such as breaches of commercial contracts, licensing and royalty disputes, founders’ disputes, violations of fiduciary duties, and false advertising. He regularly advises and counsels clients on issues related to employee mobility, including cases involving breaches of employment contracts, non-disclosure agreements, non-competition agreements, and non-solicitation agreements.

Before joining Arnold & Porter, Joe was an Assistant District Attorney for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office where he was lead trial counsel in 10 jury trials, nine of which resulted in a conviction.

He is a 2008 graduate of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law where he was a member of the Board of Advocates and served as an article editor on the Ecology Law Quarterly journal.

Amanda Karl represents consumers, employees and others who have been harmed by corporations.  She has prosecuted a wide range of complex cases, including product defect, failure-to-warn, wage and hour, data breach, sexual assault, and securities cases, within a variety of industries.  In addition, Amanda is committed to fighting voter suppression—she spearheads Gibbs Law Group’s Voting Rights Task Force.

Amanda is a 2014 graduate (Order of the Coif) of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, where she served as the Managing Editor of the California Law Review and Director of the Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic. During law school, she worked as a Clinical Law Student at the East Bay Community Law Center, assisting with litigation targeting criminal record reporting violations, and as a law clerk at Equal Rights Advocates, working on women’s employment issues.  Amanda received her undergraduate degree, magna cum laude, in Sociology and Human Rights from Columbia University in 2009.

Following graduation from law school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard A. Paez, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and to the Honorable Claudia Wilken, Northern District of California. Outside of work, Amanda serves on the Board of Directors of the East Bay Community Law Center, a legal nonprofit organization that is both the largest provider of free legal services in the East Bay Area and Berkeley Law’s largest clinical offering.

Kate specializes in complex litigation, and has a wide range of experience in both state and federal court. She has handled cases in the areas of intellectual property, contract, fraud, securities, and criminal law.   

Kate has tried both civil and criminal cases, in court and in arbitration. Her trial experience includes a copyright case with a damages claim of over a billion dollars, an eight-week federal criminal trial involving corporate accounting, and a week-long confidential arbitration in which the opposing party took nothing and was responsible for her client’s attorney’s fees. Kate has experience in all phases of litigation, from the pleadings stage to depositions to examining witnesses at trial.  Kate focuses on digging into the challenges a client faces, and developing efficient and effective solutions with an eye towards her client’s business goals.

Kate has maintained an active pro bono practice, in particular in the area of immigration law.  Kate grew up in San Francisco and is active in her community. She serves as the President of the Planning Association for the Richmond, and is on the board of the Lowell High School Alumni Association.  

Meghan Féronie Loisel joined the firm in 2016 because she wanted to represent employees who stand up for their rights.  Meghan helps employees subjected to workplace discrimination or retaliation to hold their employers accountable.  She also works to ensure that employers honor the contractual commitments they make to their employees and pay them the wages and benefits owed.  Meghan’s litigation practice includes both individual cases and class actions in court and arbitration. 

Meghan focused on employment law during law school, working as a law clerk representing low-income workers at Legal Aid at Work.  After completing a litigation fellowship with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project in New York City, she returned to the Bay Area and worked for Santa Clara County as a deputy county counsel.  This role provided Meghan with insight into public employee representation.  She was herself a public employee and union member.  She also defended the County and its employees in employment, civil rights, and tort cases.  Meghan relies on this balanced view of employment litigation to provide her clients with evenhanded assessments of their cases. 

Meghan graduated from New York University School of Law and is a member of the California Bar and New York Bar.

Chaya Mandelbaum is a Partner at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP where he represents employees in individual and class action litigation and negotiations across the spectrum of employment law. He has extensive experience in wage and hour, discrimination, retaliation, harassment and leave of absence matters.

Chaya also recently served as Chair of the California Fair Employment and Housing Council.  He was appointed and re-appointed to the position by former California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and his appointment and re-appointment were confirmed by the California Senate.  The Council promulgates regulations related to employment and housing discrimination and holds hearings on civil rights issues confronting the state.

Before joining Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, Chaya was a Senior Litigation Counsel at Sanford Heisler.  At Sanford Heisler, he represented employees in class actions involving wage and hour, discrimination and other civil rights claims.

Previously, Chaya was a Trial Attorney in the Office of the Solicitor for the United States Department of Labor.  In that capacity, he successfully represented the Secretary of Labor in numerous significant enforcement actions, including a multi-million dollar wage and penalty recovery based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He obtained successful results in both jury and bench trials during his tenure. 

Prior to his service at the Department of Labor, Chaya worked in the Labor and Employment Practice Group at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, where he represented employers in matters involving wage and hour, employment discrimination and labor relations.

Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP founding partner Adam Shea is a nationally recognized trial lawyer with extensive experience and success representing individuals and families in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and across Southern California.

Mr. Shea has a proven track record of helping those who have been harmed by negligence, wrongful conduct, violations of safety rules, and defective products – including automotive and tire product defects. In this area,  Mr. Shea specializes in bus and truck collisions involving other vehicles and pedestrians, accidents resulting from tire failures, rollovers of 15 passenger vans, trucks and utility vehicles, as well as cases involving claims of roof crush, defective fuel systems, defective restraint systems, seat back failures, child safety seat defects, airbag deployment failures, van conversion defects, and vehicle crashworthiness. He has obtained some of the largest jury verdicts and settlements in California in these types of cases and was an integral part of the trial team in Lampe v. Continental Tire that resulted in a .6 million verdict, which is the largest jury verdict in history in a lawsuit involving a defective tire.

Mr. Shea also represents injured parties in cases involving commercial truck accidents, trash truck accidents, airplane accidents, helicopter crashes, train disasters, and governmental liability for dangerous condition of public property. He has achieved over 200 settlements and jury verdicts in excess of ,000,000 in these types of cases, including numerous record settlements and verdicts.

Mr. Shea is a member of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (“ABOTA”), and has been selected by his peers for inclusion in, Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers,  Best Lawyers of America, National Trial Lawyers: The Top 100 Trial Lawyers, and Super Lawyers. He has been recognized for his legal ability and ethical standards by the prestigious Martindale-Hubbell peer review ratings with an A-V rating, the highest possible rating.

In 2011, Mr. Shea was a finalist for the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) Trial Lawyer of the Year for his representation of three young boys who lost both their parents when their van rolled over after a tread separation in the rear tire in the case of Barber v. Mossy Ford (San Diego Superior Court). The jury found that the car dealership had performed a faulty tire repair that led to the tread separation, and reached a record verdict of ,465,864. Pre-trial settlements with other defendants resulted in a combined recovery for the family of ,763,000 – as well as an agreement by the dealership to improve their training of its technicians to improve consumer safety.

A frequent lecturer at a wide variety of legal education seminars, Mr. Shea travels throughout the country sharing his expertise with his professional peers. He has appeared on national news programs, including NBC News, and has authored numerous articles in legal publications on various topics.

Mr. Shea is a member of several professional organizations, including the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, the Board of Directors of the Attorneys Information Exchange Group, the Consumer Attorneys of California, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and the American Association for Justice.

A 1990 graduate of UCLA, Mr. Shea earned his Juris Doctorate from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles in 1993. 

Laurie Smith has served as a career law clerk for the Honorable John F. Walter, U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California for more than 15 years. Prior to that, Ms. Smith litigated at several law firms in Northern and Southern California. Ms. Smith served as Managing Editor for the Virginia Tax Review Law Journal and is a 1996 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law.

Fees

Discounted rates are available for 3-4 attorneys watching Live or via OnDemand at your firm or agency.
Licenses are available for law firms or agencies that would like OnDemand Streaming for more than four attorneys. Please contact us at info@pincusproed.com or (877) 858-3848.

Pre-order now and save $25 on your purchase with the Early Bird Rate!*
Early Bird Expires February 14, 2025!

Your discount is automatically applied at check out – no coupon needed.

Pre-order the Recorded Package of this program when you register for only $129 (download or OnDemand) (attendee special only).

Registration fees are per person.

Individual: $454
Early Bird Rate: $429

Group: $429 per person for 2 or more from the same company pre-registering at the same time.
Early Bird Rate: $404

Government employee/Legal Aid* Rate: $404
Early Bird Rate: $379

Law Student*/Paralegal Rate: $265 (current JD students only)
Early Bird Rate: $240

We will send your login details and handout materials approximately one week before your program.

Program materials:

Registration includes an electronic copy (.pdf) of your seminar handbook.  This will be emailed to you a few days before the program.  Be sure to check your spam folder if you don’t see it by then.  Please put info@pincusproed.com in your address book to make sure you receive your pdf of the program handbook.

* Law Student Rate is for current law students only.  Please provide your law school ID number when you register.

** Legal Aid attorneys are those attorneys employed by Legal Aid/non-profit firms.  It does not include attorneys who have their own practice, or are employed by law firms, that volunteer their time for non-profit causes or take on pro-bono cases. It also does not include attorneys who serve on non-profit boards.

Full and partial scholarships may be available to a limited number of Legal Aid attorneys, based upon registration. Please call (877) 858-3848 to discuss or email your request to info@pincusproed.com.

CLE Credits

CA General:  This program is approved for 7.50 units of general CLE in California.

NY General: This course is eligible for approval, under New York’s CLE Approved Jurisdiction policy, for 7.50 CLE units. Pincus Professional Education is a CA Accredited Provider, which is a NY approved jurisdiction. See Section 6 of the New York State CLE Board Regulations and Guidelines for further information.

This program is approved for CLE in the states listed above.  Upon request, Pincus Pro Ed will provide any information an attorney needs to support their application for CLE approval in other states other than what is listed above. Many attorneys ask for this and are approved in other states.