Daniel B. Asimow

Daniel B. Asimow, a partner at Arnold & Porter is head of the firm’s California antitrust practice and has cases linked to high-profile clients such as the Las Vegas Raiders, Bayer Health Care, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bausch Health Companies, Elanco and Celgene.

His practice also spans various sectors, including technology licensing, alleged monopolization of the electrical grid, retail price scanning and publicity rights of retired Major League Baseball players.

One of Asimow’s major cases involved representing the Las Vegas Raiders in two actions brought by the city of Oakland against the NFL and its 32 teams. The city alleged that the league violated the Sherman Act by approving the Raiders’ move to Las Vegas, claiming the league boycotted Oakland to collect a substantial relocation fee. Asimow successfully argued against the plaintiff in both federal and state courts, leading to the dismissal of the city’s claims. In September 2022, Asimow argued the appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed in October 2022.

He said the matter is significant in at least two respects.

“First, while there were a number of prior antitrust cases about leagues or other teams attempting to prevent a team from relocating, the city of Oakland’s theory, in this case, was novel in that it asserted that allowing a team to move could constitute an antitrust violation,” Asimow said. “That would have represented a significant expansion of antitrust liability. Second, the case concerned important issues of standing. Oakland asserted that a shortage of teams drove up the cost to municipalities of hosting a team, but Oakland admitted that it had not borne these increased costs and simply couldn’t match what Las Vegas offered.”

Another notable achievement of Asimow’s was the Central American Minors program litigation. This was a challenge to the Trump Administration’s termination of the Obama-era program, which facilitated minors in Central America to join their parents or guardians legally in the United States. Asimow and his team obtained a preliminary injunction against the termination, leading to a settlement that allowed thousands of minors to safely travel to the United States.

In discussing challenges, Asimow said, “While it’s not an antitrust case, I’m particularly proud of our achievement in the CAM Litigation. That case was a challenge to the Trump Administration’s decision to abruptly terminate the Obama-era Central American Minors program, which allowed children in three Central American countries to apply in-country to join their parents or guardians legally in the United States. The program was intended to reduce overland migration of unaccompanied minors to the border. We needed to persuade a court that the termination was arbitrary and capricious because it did not consider reliance interests, e.g., the amounts parents and children had invested to obtain approvals, medical tests, plane tickets, etc. We then needed to persuade a court that the balance of hardships justified a preliminary injunction. We were fortunate that once that injunction was entered the government entered into settlement talks and we were able to negotiate a consent decree that has allowed several thousand children to safely travel to the United States.”