is a partner in O’Melveny’s Los Angeles office and a member of the Business Trial and Litigation Practice. He focuses on large, complex trials in the technology, aviation and automobile industries. For example, Tad was a member of the trial team that obtained a defense jury verdict in a US$12 billion antitrust case brought by Rambus, Inc. against the firm’s client SK hynix Inc., a result that was hailed by the Daily Journal
as one of the Top Defense Verdicts of 2011.
Tad represented a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin in litigation brought by the State of California concerning the Statewide Automated Child Support System (SACSS). The State asserted claims in the hundreds of millions. After a seven-week bench trial, judgment was entered against the State on all of its claims, and Lockheed was awarded $58 million, the full amount it sought in its claims against the State. With only a minor reduction in the damages awarded, the judgment was sustained on appeal and collected by Lockheed Martin.
Tad and his partners Daniel Petrocelli and Randy Oppenheimer represented Unocal in litigation brought by former residents of Myanmar, who asserted that Unocal was vicariously liable for human rights violations allegedly committed by the Myanmar government in connection with the construction of a natural gas pipeline partially owned by Unocal. After Unocal prevailed in a five-week trial in Los Angeles Superior Court on the issue of whether Unocal properly utilized off-shore subsidiaries in its Myanmar investment, the litigation was settled on favorable terms to Unocal.
Tad has represented several major airlines in commercial litigation and in regulatory issues, such as FAA safety investigations. He obtained a stay, on forum non conveniens grounds, of an air crash case brought in California, arising from a crash in China. This was affirmed on appeal in a published decision. Tad also represented an airline in a criminal investigation arising from a domestic airliner crash. In addition to his airline experience, Tad has represented a major commercial and military aircraft manufacturer, as well as a helicopter manufacturer and a light aircraft manufacturer, in commercial, air crash, and securities litigation. Several of these cases have involved supplier disputes. In one such case, Tad represented an aerospace corporation in securities litigation arising out of the cancellation by the Defense Department of a major aircraft procurement contract.
Among the airline and aviation industry companies Tad represents or has represented are: China Eastern Airlines, United Airlines, U.S. Airways, Alaska Airlines, Flying Tigers Airlines, Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin), and Sikorsky. In recognizing Tad among the top products liability lawyers for aviation and aerospace in its 2008 rankings of the nation’s leading lawyers, The Legal 500 United States described him as being “highly valued by clients.”
Tad has represented several automobile manufacturers. His expertise is in consumer class actions, dealer litigation, and general commercial litigation. The class actions include cases alleging product defects, fraudulent marketing programs, and deceptive sales tactics. Tad has prevailed in at least a dozen trials for his automobile manufacturer clients. Tad’s automotive manufacturer clients include General Motors, Ford Motor Co., and American Honda Motor Company.
Illustrative Professional Experience
Guimei v. General Electric Co., 172 Cal. App. 4th 689 (2009) (case arising out of air crash in China properly stayed in favor of proceedings in China, on forum non conveniens grounds)
Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) (auto manufacturer not liable for defects that do not manifest within the warranty period)
In re Claremont Acquisition Corp., 186 B.R. 977 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d, 113 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 1997) (GM’s decision to reject a prospective dealer upheld since based on objective, performance-related criteria)
Woods v. Saturn Distribution Corp., 78 F.3d 424 (9th Cir. 1996) (award of arbitration panel consisting of Saturn employees and dealers enforced notwithstanding charge of “evident bias”)
Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, State Bar of California