Pearson, Simon & Warshaw adds partner in San Francisco

Jill M. Manning joined the plaintiffs-side antitrust powerhouse Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP Tuesday as a partner in San Francisco. She practiced with Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP for 14 years prior to the move.

In an interview, Manning said she has known the attorneys at her new firm for years and collaborated with them on several big cases.

"I met Bruce Simon probably over a decade ago when we worked together on some cartel cases in the LCD industry and batteries industries and always had a tremendous amount of respect for him," she said.

"I got to know his partners Cliff Pearson and Dan Warshaw when we were co-counsel in a case against Apple recently," Manning said. "This is a firm I've long known and worked with and always had a tremendous amount of respect for." In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL. No. 1827 SI, (N.D. Cal.); Grace v. Apple Inc., 5:17-cv-00551 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 2, 2017).

Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, which has offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Minneapolis, has been plaintiffs' counsel in some of the nation's biggest antitrust cases in recent years.

In 2015, the firm was co-lead counsel in litigation that accused 12 major banks of conspiring to fix prices in the credit default swaps market. The banks paid $1.865 billion to settle the case.

Last year, the firm reached a $170 million settlement with several chicken product producers accused of conspiring to fix prices. In re: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 16-CV-08637, (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2021).

In another case that ended in 2021, the firm reached a $107 million settlement with pork producers over similar price-fixing allegations. In re: Pork Antitrust Litigation, 18-CV-01776 (D. Minn., filed June 28, 2018).

Manning said in an interview Monday she went to law school because she believed "justice is the great equalizer in life."

"After I started practicing law I realized that specializing in class actions, where I could litigate cases seeking remedies for people who have been victimized by corporate greed and its conduct really turned out to be the perfect role for me," she said. "And that's what I've been doing for the past 20 years."

The reputation of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, along with the belief that antitrust litigation is entering a more active phase, drew her to the firm, Manning said.

She pointed to lawsuits the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission filed against Alphabet Inc.-owned Google and Facebook Inc. as well as statements that government officials have made about more robustly policing the tech sector.

"When you see that type of government enforcement, that's definitely a sign of an area that needs some more attention in the antitrust field," she said. "In April of 2021, when the Senate was holding hearings on competition in the high-tech field, [Minnesota Senator] Amy Klobuchar said we have a huge monopoly problem here."

"So I think the tech field is definitely an area that you're seeing a lot of focus on, with respect to government enforcement as well as private suits on behalf of consumers and businesses that have been harmed by that conduct," Manning added.

Agriculture is another area where Manning said she sees potentially increased antitrust scrutiny. There have been too many mergers in agriculture companies, resulting in less competition as well as antitrust activity between competitors in the industry, she said.

A number of lawsuits have already been filed against poultry, pork and farm-raised salmon companies in those industries, including some by Pearson, Simon & Warshaw.

Manning is also a part of an antitrust case set to begin later this month against Sutter Health.

"This case alleges that Sutter uses its anticompetitive contract terms and contracting practices with health insurance companies to reduce competition and increase prices. So we are representing a class of over 3 million individuals and businesses in Northern California to seek return of those monies that they paid for health insurance on behalf of themselves and employees," she said. Sidibe v. Sutter Health, 12-CV-04854, (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2012).

"I think this is important because we all know that health insurance costs are very expensive in Northern California, so the ability to try to recover some of those monies on behalf of the businesses and consumers that are paying them is something that is very important to us," she added.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Feb. 9 in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of San Francisco.