Matthew J. Dolan

Dolan practices securities law on Sidley’s California securities litigation team and possesses particular expertise in cases brought in state and federal courts in California and Delaware that involve federal securities laws and corporate governance matters. And he is the partner in charge of Sidley’s Northern California pro bono practice.

In late June he said his Silicon Valley office is beginning to resume post-pandemic operations. “We’re in transition mode for the summer. Unlike many, I’m eager to be in the office every day, though it’s been a challenge with Cal-OSHA rules changing every week. I’ve been in depositions for a case in Delaware, and it’s clear there are more health safety restrictions still in place in California; counsel on the East Coast can’t understand why we can’t all be in one room now.”

Dolan said that law firms will likely tend to take their cues from their clients as they decide what resumed office life will look like. “Out here in the West, tech companies had something of a hybrid model in place even before Covid. New York is looking more like an in-person model as investment banks push their people to come back in more forcefully.”

Over the last several years, Dolan has built a substantial practice representing underwriters in securities class actions alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, which covers claims related to offerings and does not require exclusive federal court jurisdiction. That has led to a trend as plaintiff lawyers have sought to bring cases in California state court, where litigation dynamics can favor claimants.

“In federal court, you can have a stay of discovery prior to your motion to dismiss,” Dolan explained, “and defendants view federal court as a better forum to win a dismissal motion.”

So Dolan has devised roadblocks to discourage state court filings, which rose in 2018 after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed 9-0 in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund that state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate 1933 Securities Act violations.

Representing the underwriters of one IPO in parallel securities class actions filed in San Mateo County Superior Court and in the Northern District, he stayed the state matter pending a Delaware Supreme Court ruling that federal court forum provisions in IPOs are facially valid and then—in a California case of first impression—moved successfully to enforce his client’s forum clause. In re: Sonim Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, 19CIV05564 (S. Mateo Co. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 4, 2019).

In another matter he obtained a defendant-friendly decision from a state appellate panel affirming dismissal of a similar case. City of Warren v. Natera Inc., A155613 (1st DCA, op. filed Feb. 28, 2020).

“I am optimistic this fix will work because every California trial court so far has sided with enforcing the forum clause,” Dolan said.

— John Roemer