Jeffrey K. Douglass

Jeff is a partner in the firm’s Product Liability and Mass Torts and Class Action Litigation practices. He maintains a national commercial litigation practice with a particular emphasis on class action, product liability, toxic tort, and other complex, high-exposure litigation. He has experience in a broad range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, real estate, healthcare, and automotive.

Jeff’s clients range from nationwide manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of products to real estate funds and developers. Currently, he serves as national coordinating counsel for one of the country’s largest retailers. In this role, he defends claims nationwide in state and federal courts involving a popular herbicide and separate litigation related to engineered countertops. He also serves as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel for a company in connection with its defense of over 150 lead-paint personal injury and public nuisance claims. Additionally, he is defending numerous e-cigarette/vaping companies involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of devices against product liability claims in lawsuits filed nationwide.

• Ansley Walk Condo Ass’n v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., A24A0860 (Ga. App. 2024). (Affirming trial court’s granting of summary judgment in client’s favor on all claims, including inverse condemnation and trespass)
• 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). (Trial and appellate counsel for manufacturing defendant in obtaining complete reversal of $6 million jury verdict in multi-plaintiff federal lawsuit alleging 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)
• Clark v. American Cyanamid Co., et al., Appeal No. 2014AP000775 (Wisc. Ct. App.). (Counsel for manufacturing defendant in connection with appeal of order finding retroactive application of amendment to tort reform statute unconstitutional)
• Gibson v. American Cyanamid Co., et al., 760 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2014). (Counsel for manufacturing defendant in appeal of product defect claim involving violation of due process rights based upon application of Wisconsin risk contribution rule)
• S2 Acquisition LLC v. Walsh, et al., State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Case No. 10-EV-010576F. (Obtained judgment for more than $13.6 million relating to commercial construction project)
• Specialty Finance Group LLC v. Minor Family Hotels, LLC, et al., State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Case No. 2009EV006754F. (Obtained judgment in favor of national hospitality lender and against borrower and guarantor for more than $12 million relating to commercial construction project)
• Liles v. Ginn-La West End, Ltd., 631 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2011). (Affirming district court’s dismissal of multi-plaintiff action arising under Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act based on improper venue, due to forum-selection clause in applicable purchase contracts)
• Godoy ex rel. Gramling v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 768 N.W.2d 674 (Wis. 2009). (Affirming dismissal by trial court of plaintiff’s design defect claim relating to sale of white lead carbonate pigment)
• Passarella v. The Ginn Co., 637 F.Supp.2d 352 (D.S.C. 2009). (Denying plaintiff’s motion to remand and holding that 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 necessary to maintain a class action)
• Ardoin v. Stine Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. 459 (W.D. La. 2004). (Defeating attempt to certify nationwide and statewide class of homeowners due to plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy typicality, adequacy and predominance requirements under federal class action statute)
• Priluck & Nordone v. Miller, 2004 WL 5311932 (Ga. Super. 2004). (Granting summary judgment in favor of client in connection with partnership dispute and finding non-compete and liquidated damages provisions enforceable)
• Priority Fire Protection, Inc. v. Bask Decatur Hotel, LLC, 2004 WL 5314405 (Ga. Super. 2004). (Granting summary judgment in connection with contract dispute and rejecting defendant’s defense of fraudulent inducement in connection with same)
• Priority Fire Protection, Inc. v. Bask Decatur Hotel, LLC, 2004 WL 5314404 (Ga. Super. 2004). (Awarding client fees and expenses under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 following trial)
• Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 607 (S.D. Fla. 2003). (Defeating attempt to certify multi-state class of pressure-treated wood owners based on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy predominance, typicality, and manageability requirements)
• Miller v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 502 (W.D. La. 2001). (Defeating plaintiffs’ attempt to remand nationwide putative class action case to state court by establishing fraudulent joinder of non-diverse parties)