Skip to main content

Daniel J. Herling

  • Successfully resolved a wrongful death action for the US subsidiary of a German-based manufacturer of cleaning equipment. We were brought in on the eve of trial and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client.
  • Defended Similasan Corp. in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of Children’s ear homeopathic products, brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) consumer protection laws. Settled on terms very favorable to client before class certification briefed.
  • Obtained a summary judgment in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in a medical device action.
  • Successfully represented in Arbitration a supplier of component parts for a consumer product in breach of contract and breach of warranty claims arising from a nationwide CPSC recall.
  • Represented a manufacturer of private label over-the-counter (OTC) consumer products in multiple “slack fill” cases and government investigations.
  • Obtained defense verdict in a state superior court action alleging product liability and breach of contract claims.
  • Successfully obtained summary judgment in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in a business defamation claim that led to new management obtaining control of a non-US based software company.
  • Assisted a food retailer in responding to a CLRA demand letter alleging false and misleading statements on labels of food products brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) consumer protection laws. Settled favorably before lawsuit filed.
  • Defended Clif Bar in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on food products, brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) consumer protection laws. After extensive negotiations, complaint never served and dismissed for failure to prosecute case.
  • Defended Pinnacle Food Group in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of food products brought under Vermont consumer protection laws. Settled on terms very favorable to client before class certification briefed.
  • Defended Jamba Juice in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of smoothie kits, brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) consumer protection laws. Settled on terms very favorable to client before class certification briefed.
  • Defended a national retail pharmacy chain in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of private label homeopathic products, brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) consumer protection laws. Settled on terms very favorable to client before class certification briefed.
  • Represented a lumber supplier in a class action alleging false “Made in USA” labeling of consumer products. We secured a favorable settlement involving no contribution by our client to the claim fund.
  • Successfully defended a fuel distribution company against California Proposition 65 claims involving the alleged distribution of leaded aviation fuel gas from private airports.
  • Represented a supplier of do-it-yourself sewing, quilting, home decorating and crafts products in negotiations with the State of California regulatory agencies to limit fines and penalties in violation of the California Air Resources Board, and also Proposition 65.
  • Successfully represented adidas America Inc. in arguing against certification of a class action suit alleging a defect in one of the company’s popular running shoes.
  • Defended a consumer goods corporation in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of various home care products, brought under New York (GBL §§ 349, 350) consumer protection laws.
  • Represented a New York manufacturer of consumer healthcare products under California Proposition 65 allegations, obtaining a favorable settlement for our client.
  • Successfully resolved California Unfair Competition claims (17200) against manufacturers of dietary supplements, foods, cosmetics, and homeopathic medicine products.
  • Favorably settled purported three state class actions alleging product liability and contract claims in state court.
  • Successfully resolved a putative Illinois class action alleging violations of Illinois unfair trade practices act re use of advertising term “Natural” re personal care products.
  • Serving as national coordinating counsel for a Fortune 500 multinational company that is a global supplier of silicone and silicone-based technology. In this role we oversee litigation pertaining to a medicinal remedy found in many dietary supplements. We also serve as this client’s regional counsel in litigation related to silicone breasts implants and small joint orthopedics.
  • Successfully defended a California grocery retailer in a state court lawsuit and on appeal. The lawsuit was filed by three Union for Food and Commercial Worker-employed plaintiffs alleging that the retailer violated the Rosenthal Roberti Item Pricing Act.
  • Represented a publicly traded distributor of personal care products, in California regarding Prop 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act) cases and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims. All cases have been resolved through favorable settlements approved by the court.
  • Successfully resolved a putative nationwide class action alleging violations of the NY and other state unfair trade practices acts regarding the use of the advertising term “Natural” in personal care products.
  • Obtained complete dismissal of product liability, RICO action relating to medical devices through a motion to dismiss in the Southern District of Ohio.
  • Successfully represented a semiconductor equipment supplier against allegations of breach of contract, lack of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unfair competition. The plaintiff had sought approximately $200 million in damages. The defense verdict was selected as one of the Top Defense Verdicts of 2010 by the San Francisco Daily Journal and was upheld on appeal.
  • Successfully obtained a pre-judgment attachment in the amount of $45 million in breach of contract action in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a non-US based technology company.
  • Favorably settled action in the US District Court for the Northern District of California alleging breach of earnout provision of stock purchase agreement after preliminary injunction hearing. 
     
Case Study
Mintz obtained a voluntary dismissal of a putative class action filed in Florida against a manufacturer of products that require compliance with UL standards. Mintz’s dismissal motion noted that the defendant had no corporate or operational presence in Florida.
Case Study
Mintz successfully argued against certification of a federal class action suit against adidas America involving the company’s Springblade running shoes. The judge agreed that adidas did not knowingly conceal information from consumers.
Case Study
Mintz serves as national counsel to a multinational manufacturer of parts used in industrial and consumer products, assisting the company with litigation prevention and handling product liability lawsuits throughout the United States and Canada.
Case Study
Mintz helped a hair products manufacturer respond to a violation notice concerning California’s proposition 65, which requires businesses to provide warnings about exposures to certain chemicals. Mintz established that the products were subject to the statute’s Safe Harbor provisions.
Case Study
Mintz negotiated a favorable settlement of two California state court cases for a pet food manufacturer over the company’s alleged violations of California and federal regulations related to nonfunctional slack fill.
Case Study
Mintz helped a manufacturer of household cleaning products free of harmful chemicals reach a global settlement that resolved two class actions alleging violations of New York and Illinois unfair trade practices acts regarding the use of the advertising term natural.
Case Study
Mintz helped a manufacturer of plant-based, non-GMO snacks reach an early resolution of a false advertising lawsuit that challenged the company’s use of the term all-natural. Mintz attorneys have significant experience advising food and beverage clients on packaging and labeling law.