Search Our Website:
Samantha L. Southall
BIPC Logo

Samantha L. Southall

Shareholder

Philadelphia, PA
Wilmington, DE
 
 

Samantha has a diverse practice litigating complex commercial and environmental disputes in jurisdictions throughout the United States. She has significant experience representing clients in litigation involving business disputes, consumer fraud and protection, complicated contractual claims and environmental matters.

Drawing on her extensive work defending clients faced with private litigation, class actions, and enforcement actions for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other consumer protection laws, Samantha proactively counsels clients on the rapidly evolving standards of care for safeguarding confidential information and the expanding legal requirements and consumer expectations for protecting personal information.

Her thorough preparation, ability to develop innovative and creative arguments in complex litigation and effective advocacy helps her clients pragmatically resolve disputes and has led her to play a leading role in the defense and overall strategy for many key clients. Samantha's clients operate in a wide range of industries, from consumer products, financial products and software, and insurers to retail, technology and medical devices and supplies.

Samantha has more than two decades of experience in defending public and private companies in class actions and other high stakes litigation. She also has represented corporations and individuals investigated by the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission and various State Attorneys General. She has conducted internal investigations for corporate clients. Samantha also regularly counsels clients on consumer fraud and protection issues.

Samantha was named to the 2019 "Best of the Bar" list by the Philadelphia Business Journal.

Samantha is a co-chair of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee.

Proof Points

  • Obtained dismissal of a nationwide putative class action alleging that a market research firm violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Katz v. Focus Forward, LLC, 532 F. Supp.3d 170 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), aff’d, 22 F. 4th 368 (2d Cir. 2022).
  • Successfully defended a consumer reporting agency in a case brought on behalf of a nationwide class alleging that the agency violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it misreported information relating to a furnisher.
  • Successfully defended a consumer reporting agency in a case brought on behalf of a nationwide class alleging that the agency violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it provided consumer reports to tribal lenders, with the consent of those consumers.
  • Successfully defended a nationally recognized market research firm in a case brought on behalf of a nationwide class alleging that the firm violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it recruited physicians to participate in market research studies.
  • Obtained dismissal of a putative class action alleging that a retailer improperly collected sales tax on masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in violation of Pennsylvania’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection law. James v. ALDI, Inc., 2021 WL 289637 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2021).
  • Obtained dismissal of a putative class action accusing a transportation authority of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not providing job applicants with proper notice that it was using consumer reports for background checks.
  • Serve as common counsel in multi-party Superfund matters, including negotiating consent decrees, resolving natural resource damages claims and past clean-up cost claims.
  • Pursued cost recovery claims on behalf of performing party groups against non-performing potentially responsible parties.
  • Served as litigation counsel for transporter groups in environmental litigation involving the Calais Road site in New Jersey.
  • Defended a transporter in a cost recovery claim involving the Pennsauken Landfill in Camden County, New Jersey.
  • Obtained summary judgment for our client in a $20 million toxic tort action after prevailing in Daubert motions excluding the plaintiff’s causation experts. Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2012).
  • Represented a public agency in its response to a cybersecurity incident, analyzing the scope of the incident, advising on public communications, and complying with breach notification laws.
  • Counsel a wide range of clients about satisfying their obligations under privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, including retail, real estate developers and technology companies.
  • Successfully defended a distributor of dental products in In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litig. (E.D.N.Y.), a nationwide multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of a nationwide class of 200,000 dentists, alleging a conspiracy among the leading dental supply distributors to fix prices, boycott manufacturers and others, and to allocate customers and employees through no poaching agreements.
  • Obtained dismissal of a putative class of indirect purchasers of dental case in Illinois who alleged that they were overcharged as a result of a purported price fixing conspiracy. Hatchett v. Henry Schein, 2020 WL 73384 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2020).
  • Successfully defended a distributor of dental products in Source Once Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y.) in a litigation brought by a competitor alleging a conspiracy among the leading dental supply distributors to fix prices, boycott manufacturers and others.
  • Successfully defended an egg producer in In re Processed Egg Products class action antitrust litigation (E.D. Pa.), a nationwide multi district litigation alleging an industry-wide supply restriction scheme to fix the prices of eggs and egg products sold in the United States during an eight-year period.
  • Successfully defended a bodybuilding league accused of illegally monopolizing the business of competitive bodybuilding in the United States.
  • Obtained dismissal of a putative class action on summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, of a claim for $1.3 billion against a nonprofit insurer accused of violating Pennsylvania's Nonprofit Corporation Law.
  • Obtained a petition to strike and vacate an improperly entered foreign judgment under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act and Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v. Financial Software Systems, Inc., 99 A.3d 79 Pa. Super. 2014).