Sean D. Unger is a partner in the Litigation practice of Paul Hastings and is based in the firm’s San Francisco office.
Mr. Unger represents and advises clients in mass torts, class actions, antitrust and competition matters, trade secret cases, and intellectual property disputes in State and Federal courts around the country. His practice emphasizes appellate litigation. He has briefed or argued cases in numerous state and federal courts of appeal. He has represented both parties and amicus before the United States and California Supreme Courts. Mr. Unger has also represented clients in need of post-trial disaster mitigation. He has successfully brought post-trial motions for new trial and motions for judgment as a matter of law, reducing or eliminating multi-million dollar judgments.
Clients have included a broad range of companies, including Andersen Windows, Samsung, Gallo Wineries, GE, LG Display, Babcock & Wilcox, and Quanta Computers.
Appellate and Post-Trial Representations
Mr. Unger serves as a firm resource on questions of appellate and federal jurisdiction. Recent appellate and post-trial representations include:
Consumer Class Action and Competition Representations
Mr. Unger’s recent representations in high-exposure consumer class actions and antitrust disputes include:
Mr. Unger received a B.A. degree, Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of California, Berkeley. He received a J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Prior Legal Experience
Paul Hastings Secures Major Pro Bono Victory for Blue Water Navy Veterans
November 09, 2020
Paul Hastings Represents LG Display in Series of Successful Motions for Summary Judgment Narrowing Plaintiffs Claims
January 07, 2013
PH COVID-19 Client Alert Series: Treasury Department Releases Paycheck Protection Program Guidance
April 01, 2020
PH COVID-19 Client Alert Series: Guarding Against Constitutionally Suspect Legislation Arising from the COVID-19 Crisis
April 01, 2020
PH COVID-19 Client Alert Series: Consumer Protection Rules and Regulations Still Apply During COVID-19
March 31, 2020
Spokeo and Article III Standing: You May Be Particularized But Are You Concrete?
May 26, 2016
The Supreme Court Again Extends the Preemptive Effect of the Federal Arbitration Act
December 21, 2015
California Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Provision in Form Consumer Contract
August 10, 2015
Supreme Court Opinion on Preclusive Effect of TTAB’s Registration Decisions Has Important Implications for Trademark Owners
April 15, 2015
Have I Been Served? The Ninth Circuit Agrees to Clarify Process of Service for International Entities in USA v. The Public Warehousing Company, KSC
April 02, 2015
Peeling the Onion: Appellate Lawyers' Take on Disparate Cases
March 03, 2015
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca Cola Company: Have the Tides Turned in the Legal Food Fight?
July 01, 2014
Class Actions and the Ninth Circuit: Different Consumer Contracts Defeat Predominance
March 17, 2014
Minimum Contacts Inquiry Cannot Be Minimal: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Broad Reading of the Effects Test for Personal Jurisdiction
March 04, 2014
Courts Continue To Accentuate The Ascertainable Class
February 21, 2014
The Ninth Circuit Offers Guidance on the Scope of Rule 26 Expert Discovery
February 12, 2014
Recent Supreme Court Decision Limits the General Jurisdiction of U.S. Courts Over Foreign and Out-Of-State Corporations
January 21, 2014
Settling With Named Plaintiffs in Federal Class Actions: Does Timing Matter?
November 08, 2013
An Appellate Lawyer's Role in a Trial
May 28, 2013
Emerging Trends in Class Action Settlements in the Ninth Circuit
December 06, 2012
Standing Requirements in California UCL Cases Brought in Federal Court in the Wake of Tobacco II and Kwikset
February 21, 2012
Bifurcated Discovery in Class Actions: An Effective Strategy To Prevent the Continuation of the Unmeritorious Lawsuit - BNA - Class Action Litigation Report
August 26, 2011
Bifurcated Discovery in Class Actions: An Effective Strategy to Prevent the Continuation of the Unmeritorious Lawsuit
June 27, 2011
Retailers in California Face New Scrutiny of Credit Card Transactions in Light of Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 524 (2011)
March 14, 2011
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court Clarifies UCL Standing Requirements
February 03, 2011
Limiting Tobacco II? The Ninth Circuit Holds That Plaintiffs Must Identify Specific Advertisements to Allege False Advertising Claims in Federal Court
June 22, 2009
Recent Consumer Law Developments at the California Supreme Court: What Ever Happened to Prop. 64 and What Will Consumer Class Actions Look Like in the Future?
June 01, 2009
Significant Business Cases Slated for Decision in the Supreme Court Term
October 02, 2008
Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler – The Ninth Circuit Addresses A New Twist In The Law Of Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling
September 24, 2008
Speeding Things Along. By Ned N. Isokawa, Katharine Chao and Sean D. Unger. Daily Journal. June 2, 2008.
July 02, 2008
Court Weighs Whether Mergers Wipe Out Derivative Actions. By John A. Reding, Edward Han and Sean D. Unger. Daily Journal. April 6, 2006.
April 06, 2006
Proposition 64: Its Impact on 17200 Cases and Why It Should Apply Retroactively
November 15, 2004