Kaitlyn’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation across a variety of areas, including contract disputes and business dissolutions. She regularly advises clients in all stages of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling and investigation, through the discovery process, through mediation and settlement, and, where necessary, through the trial and the appeals process. She has been a member of several successful trial and arbitration teams at Mintz and her prior firm, including co-chairing a Delaware Chancery Court trial, but has also been successful in obtaining favorable settlements for her clients long before the trial process.
Kaitlyn is also active in the firm’s pro bono initiatives. She is lead counsel in immigration proceedings to obtain Special Immigrant Juvenile Status for two siblings, and has drafted and filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of pro bono clients.
Education
- Fordham University (JD, magna cum laude)
- Boston University (BS, summa cum laude)
Experience
- Represented Geneius Biotechnology, Inc in a dispute with a minority shareholder that attempted to gain control of the company. In an expedited matter, we served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Chancery Court and secured a total victory for the client.
- Successfully arbitrated a complex partnership dispute involving claims of breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the management of 3 mixed-use buildings in midtown Manhattan. Secured a $31 million award on behalf of the client, which directed that the partnership be dissolved and that there be an open market sale of the three properties.
- Conducted internal investigation of privately held company related to the termination of its CEO and negotiated favorable settlement with former executive to allow for company’s growth and additional investment.
- Represented individual partner in a partnership dissolution action with, among others, claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and disparagement. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of all but a single declaratory judgment action, allowing for favorable settlement only months after the commencement of the action.
Recognition & Awards
- Best Lawyers in America "Ones to Watch": Commercial Litigation (2021)
- New York Super Lawyers Rising Stars - Business Litigation (2016 - 2020)
- Order of the Coif, Fordham University School of Law
- Mary Daley Prize in Legal Ethics, Fordham University School of Law
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
Liu v. SEC —SCOTUS Weighs In, But Disgorgement Questions Remain
July 2, 2020 |Blog
When is an Interim International Arbitral Award “Final” Enough for Judicial Enforcement?
December 18, 2019 |Blog
News & Press
Mintz Member Laurence A. Schoen and Associate Kaitlyn Anne Crowe co-authored an article published by the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section examining how defendants have been able to use a “price impact” rebuttal to defeat class certification.
Viewpoints
Liu v. SEC —SCOTUS Weighs In, But Disgorgement Questions Remain
July 2, 2020 | Blog | By Kaitlyn Crowe
On June 22, 2020, the Court issued its 8-1 opinion in Liu et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, holding that a disgorgement award is “equitable relief” permissible under 15 U. S. C. §78u(d)(5), and, as such, is relief that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may properly seek as “appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors.
Read more
When is an Interim International Arbitral Award “Final” Enough for Judicial Enforcement?
December 18, 2019 | Blog | By Kaitlyn Crowe
A federal court must of course have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an application to confirm or enforce an arbitration award. Fortunately, that jurisdiction is, in general, provided by statute when it comes to arbitral awards that are subject to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). See Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) § 203, 9 U.S.C. § 203. However, several federal courts have determined that they lack subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to FAA § 203, to confirm or enforce an “interim” international arbitration award. But just what qualifies as “interim” is not always clear.
Read more
Can a Settlement Agreement Be Converted to an Arbitration Award That is Enforceable Under the New York Convention?
October 11, 2019 | Blog | By Kaitlyn Crowe
Here is an interesting scenario: the parties to a cross-border commercial relationship have a dispute; they have an agreement to arbitrate; arbitration is contemplated (or perhaps even commenced); the parties settle before there are any significant arbitral proceedings; they engage an arbitrator to render an award that comprises the settlement terms; and such an award is issued “on consent”. Later, one party seeks to confirm and/or enforce the award in the United States. But -- spoiler alert -- that settlement agreement/arbitral award might not be confirmed or enforced under the New York Convention.
Read more
Application to Compel Arbitration Under New York CPLR 7503: What Does It Mean to Be “Aggrieved”?
June 13, 2019 | Blog | By Kaitlyn Crowe
Under both New York and federal law, a party is entitled to seek an order to compel arbitration if it is “aggrieved” by another party’s failure to arbitrate a dispute despite being bound to do so. But what does it mean for a party to be “aggrieved” for those purposes? Specifically, is it necessary for a lawsuit to have been commenced by the recalcitrant counter-party? Or is it enough that a party simply refuses to engage in arbitration voluntarily?
Read more
The Problem of Federal Question Jurisdiction Over FAA Petitions After a Domestic Arbitration
March 13, 2019 | Blog | By Kaitlyn Crowe
Federal question subject matter jurisdiction is easy to describe: a party can bring an action in federal court if its claim is based on federal law. However, the determination of whether such a federal question exists is not very easy when a party is seeking to confirm, modify or vacate an arbitration award in federal court pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) §§ 9-11. Does the “federal question” have to be an element of the petition itself? Or is it enough that a claim in the underlying arbitration is based on federal law? The federal circuit courts are split on that issue. Consequently, in the absence of diversity jurisdiction, the determination of whether a post-arbitration award motion under the FAA will have to be made in state court or federal court may depend on the jurisdiction in which the motion is to be made.
Read more
News & Press
Mintz Member Laurence A. Schoen and Associate Kaitlyn Anne Crowe co-authored an article published by the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section examining how defendants have been able to use a “price impact” rebuttal to defeat class certification.
The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Decision in the DACA Cases Could Place LGBTQ Recipients at Serious Risk
November 11, 2019
On November 12, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on three consolidated cases challenging the legality of President Trump’s decision to phase-out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which protects eligible immigrant youth who came to the United States when they were children from deportation.
Fourteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2017 and thirteen have been named New York Rising Stars. New York Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers with the highest degree of peer recognition and professional achievements.
Sixteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2016 and twelve have been named New York Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The New York Times Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New York Super Lawyers - Metro Edition.