Skip to main content

Kevin C. Mortimer

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1754

Follow:
Share:

Kevin engages in an expansive array of litigation matters, including construction, real estate, securities, class action, insurance, and complex business litigation. He represents and counsels individuals and businesses, both large and small, in all stages of litigation, arbitration, mediation, negotiations, commercial disputes, and contracting. Kevin constantly strives to provide his clients with an efficient, tireless and responsive approach aimed towards avoiding litigation when possible.

With prior experience as a project management operational consultant at a boutique mechanical engineering subcontracting firm and a large commercial real estate company, Kevin understands the inner workings of both large and small companies—providing a well-informed perspective for clients facing construction and real estate litigation. Moreover, Kevin has extensive experience in matters concerning commercial litigation, securities litigation, Massachusetts’ lobbying laws, institutional class action recovery, and complex insurance coverage analysis and disputes.

Kevin is also actively engaged in Mintz’s pro bono efforts. As Mintz’s chair of the “Lawyer for the Day” pro bono program at Boston’s Housing Court, Kevin provides legal representation in civil matters to low-income tenants seeking resolution of disputes with their landlords.

While in law school, Kevin held the position of Online Editor of the New England Law Review, and was three-time recipient of both the Dean’s Scholarship and the New England Scholar Award. Kevin also ranked highest among his classmates in the courses of Labor Law, Negotiation, Massachusetts Practice and Procedure, Family Law, and Commercial Real Estate Capstone. Prior to law school, Kevin attended Trinity College, where he captained the NESCAC champion Trinity College Baseball Team and graduated as a member of Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society in Social Sciences.

Outside of the office, Kevin is a regular participant in the Mintz hockey team’s weekly game, as well as a contributor to local charitable events for the armed services, and juvenile diabetes and cancer research.

Education

  • New England Law (JD, magna cum laude)
  • Trinity College (BA, Economics)

Experience

  • Represented an international theater venue operator in litigation against contractors, design professionals and a steel testing company for defective design and construction of a theater. Action initiated in state court and successfully resolved in mediation more than two years before anticipated trial date.
  • Represents owners, both large and small, in mediation and arbitration concerning construction and design defects.
  • Coordinates discovery and expert investigation and analysis in complex class action, securities, and construction litigation and alternative dispute resolution.
  • Represented an owner in defense of a claim by a commercial tenant that the facility was not SCIF compliant.
  • Represents a wide variety of individuals and commercial entities in connection with alleged violations of M.G.L. ch. 93A.
  • Coordinated discovery and trial preparation in connection with a client’s alleged violations of federal securities laws.
  • Advised clients on land use matters, including complex zoning analysis in connection with the purchase and sale of commercial real estate.
  • Represents a large real estate developer in matters pertaining to construction documents for its project in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Recognition & Awards

  • Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star - Construction Litigation (2021)

Involvement

  • Chair of Mintz’s Pro Bono Housing Court Program
  • Participant Captain for the “Lawyers, Bring Us Your Briefs Charity Drive,” providing undergarments to the homeless population of Boston (2015)
  • Member, Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society
  • Trinity College baseball team representative, Team Impact, a nonprofit that pairs children with life-threatening diseases with local college teams (2011 – 2012)
  • Frequent contributor to local charitable events for the armed services (e.g. Boston Marine Corps Honor Run), and juvenile diabetes and cancer research (e.g. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Walk for a Cure, Pan Mass Challenge, and Boston Marathon)

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint Thumbnail

U.S. District Court Holds that Certain Claims by Opt-Out Plaintiffs Are Barred by the Statute of Repose

October 10, 2018 | Blog | By Joel Rothman, Kevin Mortimer, Ellen Shapiro, Alain Mathieu

In a recent ruling in In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims asserted by opt-out plaintiffs as time barred by the Exchange Act’s statute of repose pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in ANZ Securities. This decision underscores that institutional investors should closely monitor the statutes of limitation and repose applicable to securities fraud claims to ensure they are not later barred from recovery.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
As we previously noted in this post, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Volkswagen Bondholder Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to amend, holding that it could not rely on the Affiliated Ute or Basic presumptions to plead reliance, and that it had not sufficiently pleaded direct reliance. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Bondholder’s Class Action complaint (SAC), which added allegations: (1) of direct reliance, (2) that the bonds at issue were priced and traded on an efficient market, (3) that the defendants’ alleged fraud created the market, and (4) that Volkswagen committed fraud on the regulatory process. On September 7, 2018, the court denied the defendants motion to dismiss, and ruled that that the case may proceed to discovery, but also expressed concerns about the Plaintiffs’ ability to certify a class.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
In Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., the Ninth Circuit clarified the “rare circumstances” when a court may review documents extraneous to the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Given that it has become routine for securities defendants to attach numerous documents to motions to dismiss, this decision has the potential make it easier for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss. Over the next several months, it will be interesting to see whether this decision survives the defendants’ petition for en banc review, and if so, whether courts outside the Ninth Circuit follow this decision to curtail the use of extraneous documents in deciding motions to dismiss.
Read more
Former U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, the Special Master appointed to investigate alleged improper billing by class plaintiffs’ firms in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Bank and Trust Company, recommended that the firms return up to $10.6 million of the $74.5 million in attorneys’ fees awarded to them after reaching a $300 million settlement in the underlying class action.
Read more
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff denied class counsel’s request to file under seal three supplemental agreements to a $2.95 billion settlement in the Petrobras Securities Litigation, and made the side agreements part of the public record.
Read more
On November 4, 2016, Judge Keith Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted preliminary approval of a $175 million settlement in the federal securities class action In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation between BP and Lead Plaintiffs for the “post-explosion” class.
Read more

Dutch Foundation Dismissed for Inadequate Safeguarding of Members’ Interests

July 14, 2016 | Blog | By Kevin Mortimer, Joel Rothman

On June 29, 2016, the Dutch Court of East Brabant dismissed a foundation’s claims against Rabobank Group for alleged unlawful selling of interest rate swaps because it failed to meet the requirement of the Dutch Claim Code that a foundation sufficiently safeguard the interests of its members.
Read more

Dutch Foundations Negotiate €1.204 billion Settlement with Ageas, formerly Fortis.

March 22, 2016 | Blog | By Kevin Mortimer, Joel Rothman

Following up on our December 15 post on the debate over the best strategy to recover foreign securities losses, a collection of Dutch Foundations (known as Stichtings) negotiated a substantial collective settlement with Ageas SA/NV, the successor-in-interest to Fortis Holdings.
Read more
A December 22, 2015 decision of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida in In re Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities Litigation illustrates the impact that an investigation and order of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may have on a plaintiff’s ability to allege actionable false statements by an issuer regarding its internal controls.
Read more
Recently, in Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ Rule 39 motion for appellate costs and ordered the plaintiffs to pay a total of $13,281,282.
Read more

News & Press

Members Peter Saparoff and Robert Kidwell and Associates Joel Rothman and Kevin Mortimer authored this ABA’s Section of Litigation column on the trend of plaintiff investors filing a growing number of class action cases against financial institutions alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws.