WilmerHale Lawyers Go 3-For-3 During Supreme Court's 2018–2019 Term

• 6.24.2019

With their June 24 US Supreme Court victory in Dutra Group v.  Batterton, lawyers in WilmerHale’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice completed their hat trick, with wins in all three cases they argued before the Court during the term. 

In Dutra, the Court ruled that a plaintiff, in this instance a seaman whose hand was injured when a ship’s hatch blew open, cannot recover punitive damages on a claim of unseaworthiness. 

“For claims of unseaworthiness, the overwhelming historical evidence suggests that punitive damages are not available,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the six to three majority. After detailing that evidence, Justice Alito wrote: “… We cannot sanction a novel remedy here unless it is required to maintain uniformity with Congress’s clearly expressed policies.” The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for additional proceedings. Seth Waxman, partner and co-chair of the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice, argued the case for Dutra Group. 

In a May 20 opinion, in Mission Product Holding v. Tempnology LLC the court decided in an eight to one vote that the owners of brands cannot use bankruptcy law to void trademark licenses. “The question is whether the debtor-licensor's rejection of that contract deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. “We hold it does not. A rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it. And that means all the rights that would ordinarily survive a contract breach, including those conveyed here, remain in place.” Partner Danielle Spinelli argued on behalf of client Mission Product.

In a five to four decision in which the Court overturned its own four-decade-old precedent, on May 13 the justices buttressed the sovereign immunity of states in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said: “This case, now before us for the third time, requires us to decide whether the Constitution permits a State to be sued by a private party without its consent in the courts of a different State. We hold that it does not and overrule our decision to the contrary in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979).” Mr. Waxman represented the tax board.

“We always hope to win every case we argue before the Court,” Mr. Waxman said. “This term our incredible team of lawyers did precisely that, with the invaluable collaboration of our clients.”