This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Amanda Bonn

| May 19, 2021

May 19, 2021

Amanda Bonn

See more on Amanda Bonn

Susman Godfrey LLP

Amanda Bonn

Bonn’s wide-ranging litigation practice at Susman Godfrey places her on both the defense and plaintiff sides in diverse cases.

“Our founder Steve Susman, who passed away last year, always said, ‘Focus on what matters.’ In a lot of ways, litigating on both sides of the docket helps keep that perspective,” Bonn said.

She is co-lead counsel for a potential class accusing Google of secretly gathering users’ internet browsing information even when the user is in “incognito” mode in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and various California state laws. Brown v. Google LLC, 5:20-cv-03664 (N.D. Cal., filed June 2, 2020).

In the most recent development, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh of San Jose denied Google’s motion to dismiss in a March 12 order that bore significance beyond the facts of the case itself because Koh held that the “consent” exception to the Wiretap Act does not apply in Google’s favor.

Koh explained that the consent defense is unavailable because Google cannot show it notified the plaintiffs it would collect data while the plaintiffs were in private browsing mode, and because Google allegedly intercepted the plaintiffs’ communications to violate other laws including California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

Separately, Bonn served as Susman Godfrey’s lead California trial counsel for a whistleblower and other plaintiffs—including Los Angeles and Riverside counties, the UC system and the Cal State system—in a False Claims Act suit against the four largest wireless carriers over fraudulent overbilling allegations. State of California ex rel OnTheGo Wireless LLC et al. v. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless et al., 34-2012-00127517 (Sacramento Co. Sup. Ct., filed July 5, 2012).

Settlements finalized in September 2020 were valued at $175 million, the largest of their kind in California; the money has been paid to hundreds of California and Nevada government entities.

“I love going to trial, but at the end of the day the most important thing is achieving a positive outcome. Again, as Mr. Susman said, we focus on what matters,” she said.

— John Roemer

#362704

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com