This advertising is intended for other attorneys only—if you don’t work at a plaintiffs’ firm, kindly look at our other pages instead.
As a Plaintiffs’ attorney, you work hard to serve your clients and build your practice. Let us handle the briefs and legal research.
In 2022 alone, we matched wits with opposing counsel at national powerhouses like Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Jones Day, Gordon Rees, and Shook Hardy & Bacon—winning on several key procedural motions in the process. Our thriving Issues & Appeals practice handles major motions in high-stakes cases for Plaintiffs’ firms like yours.
We either work as contract lawyers behind the scenes or appear as co-counsel—whatever makes you and your clients most comfortable.
Take the issue off your plate and send it our way
we will love every minute we spend on it
Why Bring Hilton Parker LLC on Board to Handle Your Motions Practice
Personal Jurisdiction in Products Liability Actions
We routinely write responses to personal jurisdiction motions in all types of cases—and one of our favorite things to do is to beat motions by foreign manufacturers. Creativity is key.
Case Study: Overseas Manufacturers. In one recent case, a plaintiffs’ firm asked us to draft a response to a European manufacturer’s motion to dismiss. There was a catch: We needed to have a finished response brief researched, written, and on file with the Court the next day.
Within hours, we had unearthed an obscure case (almost 80 years old) from the state Supreme Court that would do the trick—a case that had not been cited by that court for over three decades. Then we carefully reviewed each U.S. Supreme Court case limiting the “stream of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction since that time, and we explained why none of those cases had overturned the theory the state Supreme Court had adopted over a half century ago.
The state court judge agreed. Within a few weeks, the court denied the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss. What’s more, we managed to pull off the entire full-length winning brief in just 22 billable hours—a bargain for our law firm client.
Reach out to us today to see how we can help with your personal jurisdiction briefing. Since this is an area of the law we know well, we may be able to take it on for a flat fee.
Venue, Joinder, Removal, & Mass Tort Planning
Deciding where to file the next big mass tort? We sometimes work as consultants for plaintiffs’ law firms in the planning stages of mass torts. We can provide a comprehensive overview of the jurisdictions available to you.
If you want to keep your new mass tort in state court, we can provide you with a full analysis of how likely you are to keep it there. We scrutinize each relevant federal Circuit’s decisions on SNAP removal, fraudulent joinder, and misjoinder under Tapscott. We also consider state court motions to sever—and can have your motions practice ready to go when you launch your mass tort.
Attorney Jonathan Hilton handled Daubert motions and research at Jones Day. Combined with Geoffrey Parker’s prior career track in research science and biochemistry, we have the background necessary to handle your expert witness briefing. Since leaving “Big Law,” we have been trusted by other attorneys with Daubert research and briefing in mass torts. Take the science off your plate and send it us—we will love every minute we spend on it.
Some firms even hire us to plan to “Daubert-proof” their experts from the get-go. We can review the case law and suggest experiments your experts should carry out to help guard against an adverse Daubert decision.
Settlement Agreement Analysis
- Does settling with one defendant extinguish others’ liability? Will the settling defendant be an “empty chair” at trial?
- How can you ensure a settling defendant continues to cooperate in discovery?
- Can other Defendants discover the settlement agreement?
- Will the settlement agreement be an issue at trial?
- How do different state and federal courts compute setoffs after judgment—is it a dollar-for-dollar reduction, or by percentage of fault?
Novel Theories of Liability
We are often asked to move the law in creative ways—often by arguing for (or even designing) new theories of liability. We develop creative theories of liability by looking to the reasons behind old rules. Relying on a mixture of common sense, statutory construction, and reinterpretation of old case law, we aim to develop the law using both logic and experience.
"The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience."
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in "The Common Law"
Case Study: Innovator Liability. It isn’t every day that judges rule from the bench—and it’s rarer still that they do so in pharmaceutical cases with novel issues. Jonathan Hilton made waves this year when he pulled off exactly that, scoring an upset in Nevada state court against top-ranked firm Kirkland & Ellis. Hilton bested big pharma defense star Cole Carter (a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton), and the judge ruled for Mr. Hilton’s client at the conclusion of oral argument. The trial court became the first in Nevada to accept an “innovator liability” theory.
The case has gone straight up to the Nevada Supreme Court. In GlaxoSmithKline, LLC v. Eighth Jud. District, Case No. 85501, the Court will decide whether personal jurisdiction exists over out-of-state pharmaceutical companies for so-called “innovator liability” torts. Innovator liability theories allow plaintiffs to hold brand-name drug manufacturers liable for problems even if the plaintiff only took the generic version of the drug. Hilton successfully argued in the trial court that this is only fair: federal law requires the generic to copy exactly whatever the brand-name manufacturer does, right down to the precise wording of the warning label.
Hilton’s hard-hitting response brief drew attention within days. Nevada legal writing professor Joe Regalia recently unleashed a series of eleven tweets praising what he called a “ridiculously good brief.” The tweets break down the writing techniques Hilton used to keep the brief understandable and engaging—which is not always easy where civil procedure is involved.
Professor Regalia tweeted:
“When imagining the best legal writers, you might think of big names at big firms. But small firms have powerhouses, too. Case in point: A ridiculously good brief penned by a plaintiff’s attorney at the boutique Hilton Parker LLC.”
The case is fully briefed and ready for oral argument—which we are eagerly awaiting.
Choice of Law
Few lawyers enjoy choice of law. But are they missing opportunities for their clients? As a plaintiffs’ lawyer, did you know that you can often avoid punitive damages caps by arguing that punitive damages must be analyzed under the law of the Defendants’ home state? And what states’ laws apply to related insurance agreements or to a piercing-the-corporate-veil analysis?
Mr. Hilton teaches CLEs on choice of law, including for the Ohio State Bar Association and the National Business Institute. He can often find unique ways to argue around choice-of-law provisions in contracts, such as:
- Applying concepts like renvoi and dépeçage
- Arguing party conduct is at issue—not contract interpretation
- Arguing that one state’s law is to apply another state’s law
- Finding a controlling state statute
- Finding another agreement between the parties that arguably controls
- Moving quickly for preliminary relief, before difficult choice of law issues are identified
- Arguing certain aspects of a case are “procedural” rather than substantive
- Arguing against enforceability based on a lack of a substantial relationship to the chosen state’s law, or based on public policy
Mr. Hilton’s appellate research and briefing has supported other firms in:
- Reversing, at the Sixth Circuit, dismissal of a securities fraud complaint brought by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System against Freddie Mac;
- Upholding an $11.4 million verdict against Toyota on appeal to the Eighth Circuit in a “sudden acceleration” case, including upholding the lower court’s Daubert decisions and admission of other similar incidents evidence;
- Obtaining dismissal of an interlocutory appeal on procedural grounds;
- Reaching an $80 million class action settlement with Duke Energy.
Mr. Hilton has also represented clients in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, as well as before Ohio appellate courts. He has helped draft appeals in both civil and criminal cases.
Meanwhile, Mr. Parker, working with Mr. Hilton, has obtained notable reversals of lower court decisions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In well-reasoned decisions, that appellate court has ruled for Mr. Parker’s clients in Donovan v. FirstCredit, Inc. and Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.
We don’t flinch at the thought of oral argument—we relish it. At the trial court level, our goals as appellate lawyers is not only to persuade the judge, but also to create a clean transcript that will highlight the issues preserved. Mr. Parker’s debate experience, and Mr. Hilton’s love of thinking on his feet, both pay dividends in this area. To watch us in action, you can find a live recording of Mr. Hilton arguing before an appellate panel here, and Mr. Parker arguing before a panel here.
What Lawyers Are Saying About Us
“I have known Jonathan for over 8 years. Jonathan is one of the most intelligent, thorough, innovative and accessible lawyers I have ever met. Jonathan takes any issue presented, listens carefully to his client’s goals, and is then able to execute a great plan of action. I feel extremely confident recommending clients to Jonathan and I know he will continue to do great work for them.” – Laura Thudium, Esq.
“Jonathan Hilton is a wonderful attorney. He’s extremely smart and very empathetic. He responds quickly to emails and phone calls. . . . I definitely recommend Hilton Partner LLC!” – Yosef Schiff, Esq.
“I have come to know them as brilliant researchers, writers and litigators who handle the most complex and compelling cases. I highly recommend them to clients and other attorneys in need.” –David Bhaerman, Esq.
Appellate And Major Motion Rates
We offer special discounted rates to other attorneys. You would also be surprised at how much research we can accomplish in even a single hour. Many major motions can be completed in as little as twenty to forty hours, including time spent on reply briefs. If you are interested in having us research a topic or draft briefs without appearing in the case, we may be able to offer discounted rates. Reach out to us below to learn more and discuss your individual needs.
Affordable Local Counsel Services In The Southern District of Ohio
For lawyers just looking for local counsel, we offer affordable flat-rate services that cover all of the following for $750:
- Review the Complaint and prepare ancillary forms such as the civil cover sheet and summons forms, ensuring compliance with applicable local rules
- Electronically file the Complaint
- Communicate with the Clerk of Courts if there are any issues in obtaining summonses or to handle any issues with the filing of the Complaint
- Prepare and file pro hac vice motions for you
- Advise you as to the correct Rule 26(f) form to use for each judge or magistrate
Any further services you require before trial, such as attendance as hearings or conferences, are typically billed at a reduced hourly rate.
Free Appeals & Major Motions Consultations *
Hilton Parker LLC Law Office
7544 Slate Ridge Blvd
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068