EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

Charles R. Messer is an experienced trial lawyer, and he is an experienced appellate lawyer.

Mr. Messer has tried cases to final defense verdicts in various state and federal courts, in the legal fields of civil rights, commercial law, consumer law, employment law, and tort law. He has also tried several plaintiffs’ cases, for property damages. Two of his successful plaintiffs’ verdicts exceeded a million dollars.

Mr. Messer has written briefs and argued before California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Those appellate matters involved legal issues in civil rights, consumer law, employment law, evidence, and tort law.

Civil rights.

Mr. Messer is lead trial and appellate counsel for the defendants in Vegan Outreach, Inc. v. Piedad Chapa, Ninth Circuit docket no. 10-56991. That pending civil rights case will consider whether non-students have First Amendment free speech rights to speak and leaflet on college campuses.

Mr. Messer has won defense verdicts for various public entities and employees, including the Huntington Beach Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District and their employees. Mr. Messer has been lead trial counsel in civil rights cases involving claims of assault, battery, excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment, free speech issues, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, Monell claims, negligent infliction of emotional distress, qualified immunity, 11th Amendment defenses, 42 U.S. Code section 1983 claims, and other civil rights issues.

Commercial litigation.

Mr. Messer has successfully represented small and medium-sized companies in claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of non-compete agreements, fraud, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices.

Consumer law.

Carlson & Messer LLP has an active consumer-law practice, representing creditors and debt collectors. In May 2011, Mr. Messer argued for the respondent before the California Supreme Court in Brown v. Mortensen, 51 Cal. 4th 1052 (2011), where the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that claims under California’s Confidential Medical Information Act, Civil Code sections 56 et seq., are preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S. Code section 1681t(b)(1)(F). Mr. Messer is currently writing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in that case. Mr. Messer was lead appellate counsel for defendant Bell Corporation in Camacho v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 142 Cal.App.4th 1394, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 (2006). He alone argued that the scope of consumers’ “unfairness” claims under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 should be tethered to Section 5 of the federal Fair Trade Commission Act. The court adopted Mr. Messer’s argument. A subsequent court characterized Camacho’s reliance on federal law as, “an excellent analysis,” Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, 179 Cal.App.4th 581, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 697 (2009), though other appellate courts have disagreed. The California Supreme Court has not yet reconciled the differing appellate decisions. Also, Mr. Messer was lead trial counsel for the defendant in Payne v. National Collection Systems, Inc., 91 Cal.App.4th 1037, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 260 (2001), and in the California Attorney General’s earlier civil case against the defendant. The Payne decision reversed, by a 2-1 majority, the Los Angeles Superior Court’s ruling that under the doctrine of res judicata, the final judgment in the Attorney General’s case barred Payne’s subsequent class action.

Currently, Mr. Messer is lead trial counsel for defendants in several class actions that allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Those cases are pending in various federal district courts, inside and outside the State of California.

Employment law.

Carlson & Messer LLP has an active employment-law practice, representing employers and management in both the public and private sectors. Mr. Messer has been lead trial counsel in cases involving age discrimination, assault, battery, defamation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate disabilities, failure to engage disabled employees in an interactive process, failure to prevent sexual harassment, fraud, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, invasion of privacy, marital-status discrimination, national origin discrimination, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claims, race discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment (both opposite-sex and same-sex), sexual orientation discrimination, unfair business practices (California Business & Professions Code section 17200), violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, wage claims (allegedly unpaid break periods, commissions, meal periods, and overtime), whistle-blower allegations, wrongful termination, and other employment-related claims.

Mr. Messer recently argued an appeal for the respondents (a college and eight of its employees), who were sued by former students for race discrimination and retaliation. The court of appeal unanimously affirmed the Los Angeles Superior Court’s summary judgment for all of the defendants. Amini v. Southern California University of Health Sciences, case no. B191273.

Mr. Messer was lead trial counsel and lead appellate counsel for an employer, in a cutting-edge case involving alleged marital status discrimination. The employer had terminated an employee for conflict of interest, after learning that the employee's wife worked for a competitor. The employee then sued for marital status discrimination, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The court of appeal unanimously affirmed the San Diego Superior Court’s summary judgment for the defendant. Chambless v. Draeger, case no. D040898.

Tort law.

Mr. Messer has handled and supervised numerous tort cases involving allegations of abuse of process, assault, battery, conspiracy, conversion, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, malicious prosecution, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, and products liability. He has tried several products liability cases to final defense verdicts, including (as lead trial counsel) defense verdicts for a pump manufacturer, and for a valve manufacturer. In each of the latter cases, the verdict against other defendants exceeded a million dollars.

While with Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1988-1997), Mr. Messer deposed all of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125 L.Ed.2d 469, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993). Daubert is one of the most important cases about evidence in the history of American jurisprudence, and it led to substantial amendments to Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence. Mr. Messer deposed the plaintiff's lay and expert witnesses, prepared and defended the defendant’s experts in their depositions, prepared the defendant’s expert for the Rule 104 hearing, and wrote the key in limine and summary judgment motions in Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996). Lust was one of the first cases to approve trial courts’ use of Rule 104 hearings to determine the admissibility of experts’ opinions under Daubert. And, Mr. Messer was one of the defendant’s trial lawyers in Havner v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997), wherein the Texas Supreme Court adopted Daubert standards for admissibility of experts’ opinions in Texas state courts.

ADMISSIONS TO PRACTICE LAW

All Courts of the State of California 1981

U.S. District Courts:

Central District of California 1982

Eastern District of California 1987

Northern District of California 1988

Southern District of California 1988

District of Colorado 2011

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2011

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1982

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2011

United States Supreme Court 2011

Other Courts:

Mr. Messer has been admitted, pro hac vice, to practice law before various state and federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

EDUCATION

Southwestern Law School J.D. 1981

San Jose State University B.S. with Distinction 1977

Mr. Messer is rated, “AV Preeminent,” by Martindale-Hubbell, which is its highest possible Peer Review Rating for ethical standards and legal ability.

Since 2009, Mr. Messer has presided as a Voluntary Settlement Conference Officer in more than sixty cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court, and he has a growing ADR/Mediation practice.