Joseph Saveri Selected and Profiled by California Daily Journal as “Top Plaintiff Lawyer” 2018

Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm was selected by the California Daily Journal as one of thirty “Top Plaintiff Lawyers” in California for 2018.  He and firm partner Top Plaintiff Lawyer Steven Williams were profiled in a supplement issue contained in today’s Daily Journal.  The firm was one of only five statewide to field multiple winners of this prestigious award.

Joseph Saveri – Antitrust

Specializing in antitrust work, Saveri with his eponymous firm has racked up over $1 billion in settlements and successful resolution for its clients since opening its doors in 2012.

“I’m really proud of the firm I’ve been able to build and the high quality lawyers we’ve been able to attract,” Saveri said, noting the firm has been attracting young talent and minted a new partner this year.

One of Saveri’s most impactful cases has been representing a class of purchasers of the antibiotic drug Cipro, proving that Bayer AG and several generic drug companies entered into an illegal “reverse payment” agreement to tamp down generic versions of the drug and keep prices high.  In re Cipro Cases I and II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154, 4220 (San Diego Super. Ct. April 27, 2017).

Although Saveri said he originally lost the case at the trial court level on a summary judgment motion, he appealed it all the way to the California Supreme Court and secured a record $399 million judgment after it was remanded back to trial.

“I’m proud of how we advanced the law in an important direction including going all the way up to the California Supreme Court and prevailed there,” Saveri said, noting that the settlement was a record in California for a reverse payment case.

“Courts across the country look to this decision as really the landmark decision in this area,” he added.

In another significant ongoing case, Saveri and his firm are representing a class of approximately 2,000 profession mixed martial arts fighters, alleging that the Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC organization that controls the fights has unfairly enriched itself through fighters to the tune of $1 billion.  Le v. Zuffa, LLC, 15CV01045 (D. Nev., filed March 20, 2017).

“The basic claim is that the owners of this organization have dominated and monopolized the sport,” Saveri said.  The suit claims the agreements fighters have to sign involve forfeiting the use of their likeness and other noncompetitive practices such as purchasing then shuttering competing promoters, which entitle the fighters to compensation,” Saveri said.

“The fighters  . . . really don’t have any of the economic benefits of what they’re doing and all the income generated is kept by the UFC and not shared,” he added.

Saveri said mentoring a new generation of antitrust attorneys was important to him and he is active outside of court.  He is involved with court committees for the Northern District of California as a lawyer’s representative.  He said he writes and speaks on topics such as complex commercial litigation and e-discovery antitrust law trial practice.

(Reporting by Chase DiFeliciantonoio)