Carrie Akinaka

Early Dismissal of Class Action Challenging MSG Claim

United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Won dismissal with prejudice for major food manufacturer sued for a “No MSG Added*” claim on its chicken broth labels. Just as we argued, the court noted that the label included a prominent and proximate disclaimer that clarified any consumer confusion. The court also accepted our conclusion that FDA statements on MSG did not change this conclusion.

Early Dismissal of Class Action Challenging Empty Space in Package

United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Won dismissal with prejudice for major food manufacturer sued for alleged excessive slack-fill (i.e., empty space) in its fruit snacks. Relying on our long line of cited precedent, the court agreed that that product is not misleading to a reasonable consumer because the packaging lists exactly how many fruit snack pouches come in each box—five, each with 23 grams of snacks inside.

Summary Judgment of Class Action Challenging Heavy Metals in Baby Food

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Won summary judgment for major food manufacturer sued for alleged heavy metals in its baby food products. We argued and the court agreed, our client did not have a duty to disclose the risk of the presence of heavy metals in its baby food products as the omitted information did not pertain to (1) an unreasonable safety hazard or (2) the central function of the product, barring recovery under California consumer protection law. The court also determined that the products’ labels did not violate the consumer protection laws of New York, Illinois, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania.

Nationwide Settlement of Class Action Challenging Product Origin Claim

United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Successfully negotiated a $15 million nationwide class action settlement on a “claims-made” basis, overcame several intervening objectors—including three individuals and six attorneys general—and oversaw several rounds of review for fraudulent claims. Over the plaintiffs’ objection, the court ordered our client to pay only valid claims, as determined by the third-party settlement administrator (not plaintiffs’ counsel), and need not pay any interest on the delayed settlement payment.

Nationwide Settlement of Class Action Challenging Ingredient Claim

Third Judicial Circuit of Madison County, Illinois
Successfully negotiated and oversaw the administration of a $1 million nationwide class action settlement with a “claims made” structure, as opposed to a “common fund” structure, resulting in significant cost savings for the client.

Summary Judgment for Major Tuna Supplier in Personal Injury Suit

King County Superior Court, Washington
Won summary judgment for a multinational tuna supplier sued in the United States for an injury that occurred on a foreign company’s ship off the coast of the Solomon Islands. Agreeing with our arguments, the court held that although our client (a U.S. entity) and the foreign company were related (i.e., part of the same corporate group), the plaintiff failed to show that our client exercised control over the foreign company or its ship. Our client was dismissed as an improper party.

Summary Judgment for Loan Servicer Allegedly Misapplying Loan Payments

United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Idaho
Won summary judgment for a major loan servicer who allegedly misapplied borrower’s loan payments. The court agreed with our arguments in lockstep: Idaho law applied, and under that law, the borrower’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. This put an end to years of unnecessarily protracted and expensive litigation.

Multimillion-Dollar Private Settlement for Commercial Landlord

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Secured multimillion-dollar settlement for landlord alleging $40 million in damages against former tenant due to its destruction of property and failure to maintain the premises, a large corporate campus in Northern California. We successfully negotiated favorable settlement terms after a strategic barrage of discovery, depositions, and mediations.

Voluntary Dismissal of Frivolous Claim Against Lender and Full Payment of Attorneys’ Fees

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed alleged fraud claims against lender after the plaintiff’s repeated losses in court. We removed to federal court, the plaintiff lost every motion, we inundated the plaintiff with discovery, and won every discovery dispute. We successfully negotiated a voluntary dismissal with full payment of attorneys’ fees—hundreds of thousands of dollars—relying on a key provision in the loan agreement.

Dismissal of Nonprofit Assisting Police in Arresting Sexual Predators

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Won dismissal of claims against a nonprofit that generally supports Washington state police in sting operations to arrest online sex predators. The court agreed that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that our client was involved in the event leading to the plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution or otherwise conspired with the police to violate his constitutional rights. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claim, too, as barred by the statute of limitations.

Dismissal of $7 Million in Counter Claims Against Aquarium Manufacturer

United States District Court, Central District of California
Won dismissal of seven counterclaims, amounting to more than $7 million in damages, asserted by distributor against our client, an aquarium manufacturer. The court dismissed each counterclaim, agreeing that they were internally inconsistent, mutually exclusive, and barred by several doctrines, including the statute of frauds, statute of limitations, and economic loss/independent tort rules.

Amicus Brief Cited in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Dissent

United States Supreme Court
Contributed to an amicus brief addressing the right-to-abortion issue in the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The brief, drafted by Perkins Coie attorneys in partnership with Seattle-based legal advocacy organization Legal Voice, argued that restricting abortion disproportionately affects victims of intimate partner violence, women of color, and those of lower socio-economic status. Although the Court ultimately issued a controversial decision reversing its decades-long precedent in Roe v. Wade, in one shining moment, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan cited the amicus brief in their dissent.

Early Dismissal of Civil Rights Action Against Homeless Veteran

United States District Court, Central District of California
As a first-year associate three months in, successfully defended a homeless veteran sued for helping police officers arrest a belligerent man on the Los Angeles VA campus. Partnering with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, we filed a motion to dismiss that the court granted without leave to amend, citing our brief repeatedly and agreeing that a Bivens claim, usually reserved for claims against federal employees for civil rights violations, fails against a private individual undergoing rehabilitative care at the VA.