Moez M. Kaba

LOS ANGELES - Moez M. Kaba, a star litigator at Hueston Hennigan LLP, specializes in securities, trade secrets, white collar, intellectual property, entertainment and antitrust litigation. Over the last 18 months, he has tried four cases to verdict or judgment and prevailed in each.

"It's been both exhilarating and exhausting, but, as I tell my colleagues, if you are to be a real trial lawyer, you have to go to trial," Kaba said. "What has particularly stood out for me this past year is that we prevailed in historic and significant ways on both sides of the 'v.'"

On the defense side, Kaba was co-lead trial counsel for Monster Energy Inc. He won a landmark $175 million verdict plus significant royalty payments and $10 million in attorney fees on counterclaims in a trademark showdown with the maker of a rival beverage known as Bang. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc. and Monster Energy Inc., 5:20-cv- 01464 (C.D. Cal., filed May 6, 2020).

"The Monster case had several complicated issues that touched on science, trademark law, contract interpretation and damages," Kaba said. A big part of our case was proving that Bang's multi-billion-dollar brand was built on an original deception, namely, that its energy drinks were 'creatine-based.' Through extensive scientific evidence and cross-examinations of the other side's own witnesses, we established that the drinks did not even contain creatine much less were they creatine-based."

Kaba was also co-lead trial counsel for Endo Pharmaceuticals in California's statewide case against the opioid industry. Following a three-month trial, he and colleagues prevailed in a win for big pharma in the face of claims for public nuisance, unfair competition and false advertising. People of the State of California v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., 30-2014-00725287 (O.C. Super. Ct., filed May 21, 2014). V

A turning point was his cross-examination of the government's star witness, Dr. Anna Lembke, regarding her opinions about allegedly false and misleading marketing by the drug-maker defendants. "It was critical for the government to establish that our client, Endo, in fact, engaged in such false marketing," Kaba said. "Through my cross of Dr. Lembke, by focusing on the actual evidence rather than platitudes, we were able to get her to admit that Endo extensively disclosed risks, that Endo faithfully adhered to its FDA-approved label and that her issue was not with Endo's marketing but rather with the FDA's decision to allow opioid medications in the first place." V

Kaba had prepared a big finale. "I ended the examination by playing an unexpected clip of Dr. Lembke's own admission in an interview-- which we dug up after going through all of her prior statements over many years--that she was 'totally biased' because she treated people who were addicted rather than people who were benefiting from this medication," he said.