John C. Hueston

LLOS ANGELES - John C. Hueston is a prominent business trial lawyer and a co-founder in 2015 of Hueston Hennigan LLP, a trial law boutique. This year he won a Daily Journal Top Verdict award for his complete defense victory for Purdue Pharma L.P. in opioid drug litigation in Orange County. In 2021, he won a CLAY Award and was named a Daily Journal Top Lawyer of the Decade.

LSuccess has led to more work. "I have never been busier, with six trials in little more than a year," Hueston said in August. His demanding schedule of marquee cases has enabled him to offer junior colleagues courtroom experience.

LIn April, after a weeks-long trial in arbitration, Hueston won one of the largest trademark infringement awards ever: $175 million plus $10 million in attorney fees and 5% annual royalties for client Monster Energy Co. and co-defendant Orange Bang Inc. in counterclaims against the maker of a rival energy drink named Bang. In July, the big judgment was upheld by a federal court. Hueston pointed out that the royalty component of the outcome will yield an additional $40 million each year. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc. et al., 5:20-cv- 01464 (C.D. Cal., filed May 6, 2020).

L"The decision recognizes that Bang has long competed unfairly in the beverage marketplace," Hueston said. "Any failure by Vital to make the required payments automatically triggers a permanent injunction, largely precluding Vital from selling products with the 'Bang' mark. The acknowledged substantial damages and meaningful injunction will deter misconduct and encourage more competitors to fight to protect their trademarks and contracts."

LIn the opioid case, Hueston prevailed in November 2021 as lead trial counsel representing Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. in California's $50 billion statewide false advertising and unfair competition action against the makers of prescription painkillers. People of the State of California v. Purdue Pharma LP et a., 30-2014-00725287 (O.C. Super. Ct., filed May 21, 2014).

L"Our overall strategy from the start was to try to move the focus of the trial beyond the question of 'Is there an opioid crisis,' which everyone largely conceded from the get-go, and to focus in singularly on 'Where are the false statements?'" Hueston said. "The key was that all legal claims -- even the nuisance claim -- depended on proof of false statements.

LBy the final closing argument, we had reduced the plaintiffs' case to a mere 11 Endo documents with alleged false statements out of millions of pages produced. We then methodically showed how nothing in even this handful of documents was misleading. We believe that the comprehensive decision by Judge [Peter J.] Wilson should represent a bellwether result and an influential opinion for judges in cases throughout the country."