Bob Alpert

Bob Alpert is a partner in Taft’s Class Action Litigation and Product Liability and Mass Torts practices. He is widely regarded as a standout in the courtroom, earning acclaim from both colleagues and adversaries across the legal profession. Attorneys and judges from around the country have praised his litigation skills, highlighting not just his technical proficiency but also his rapport with jurors.

Bob has defended clients in complex, high-exposure litigation matters throughout the United States, including:

• National coordinating counsel for an international home improvement retailer in over 50 product liability cases in state and federal courts arising from the sale of a popular herbicide.
• National coordinating and lead trial counsel for international container manufacturer in public nuisance and personal injury litigation arising from alleged exposure to pigment in lead-based paint.
• National coordinating and lead trial counsel for international real estate developer in over 50 individual, multi-party, and putative class action lawsuits arising from development of residential resort communities.
• Lead counsel for retailers, distributors and manufacturers of e-cig/vape products in product liability litigation arising from sale of e-cig/vape devices and their component parts.

• Burton et al. v. American Cyanamid Co., et al., 2022 WL 623895 (E.D. Wis. 2022). Obtained summary judgment for manufacturing defendant in seven cases involving over 150 plaintiffs alleging ingestion of white lead carbonate.
• Burton et al. v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al., 994 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2021). Lead trial and appellate counsel for manufacturing defendant in obtaining complete reversal of $6 million jury verdict in multi-plaintiff federal lawsuit based on alleged ingestion of white lead carbonate.
• Ansley Walk Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., 362 Ga. App. 191, 867 S.E.2d 600 (2021), cert. denied (Ga. Oct. 25, 2022). Affirming trial court’s denial of motion for class certification in multi-plaintiff lawsuit alleging inverse condemnation and trespass.
• Byers, et al. v. The Ginn Companies, LLC, et al., 08-1012 (M.D. Fla . 2017). Lead counsel for international real estate development company in obtaining complete summary judgment in nearly 10-year litigation involving federal RICO claims filed by more than 50 plaintiffs who purchased over $30 million in Bahamian real estate development.
• Davis v. Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc., Superior Court of Bartow County, State of Georgia, Case No. 13-CV-556. First-chaired jury trial in defense of manufacturing client where plaintiff sought more than $3 million, resulting in judgment of less than $300,000.
• Bailey v. ERG Enterprises, LP, et al., 705 F.3d 1311(11th Cir. 2013). Lead counsel for international real estate developer in appeal from dismissal of claim due to exclusive venue provision in real estate contract.
• Specialty Finance Group LLC v. Minor Family Hotels, LLC, et al., State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Case No. 2009EV006754F. Lead counsel in successful prosecution of creditors’ rights lawsuit on behalf of national hospitality lender arising from complex commercial construction project; obtained summary judgment in favor of lender and against borrower and guarantor for more than $12 million.
• Passarella v. The Ginn Co., 637 F. Supp. 2d 352, 2009 WL 1953030 (D.S.C. 2009). Denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand and holding removal was proper under Class Action Fairness Act, notwithstanding “non-removal” provision of Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.
• Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 872 N.E.2d 53 (Ill. App. 2007). Affirming trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for certification of nationwide class on ground that plaintiff failed to satisfy predominance requirement under Illinois class action statute.
• Martin v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 198 (W.D. Tex. 2004). Defeating attempt to certify statewide product liability class action on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements.