Motions Practice | Southern District of Ohio

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

The answer is simple: you want a well-rounded, high-caliber lawyer with the legal research skills, creative problem solving, procedural accuracy, and academic prowess to tackle major issues. You want to put a couple of former Jones Day attorneys who aced their law school exams and have a solid record, but you don’t want to break the bank by hiring someone with extensive overhead. We get it. Below are just some of the issues we handle.

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.

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

So for all your choice of law needs, look no further.

Daubert Briefing

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.

What Lawyers Are Saying About Us

“I may have found the best brief of the year. . . . Boutique Hilton Parker shows off ridiculously good writing techniques here. Seriously.”

– Law Professor Joe Regalia.

“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.

“[O]ne of the best briefs we’ve seen in quite a while . . . Hilton’s brief shows off a slew of
legal writing techniques we see the best advocates use again and again—from an introduction
that immediately grips you to small-picture style tools that make reading a pleasure.”

– Write.law Newsletter.

“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.

Motions Practice Rate

Our motions practice and research memo rate for Plaintiffs’ attorneys is $295 per hour. Given our extensive background in motions practice, you may be surprised 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.

Recent Sample Prices

If you have a particular motion or brief in mind, we will likely be able to provide you with an estimate up front. In some cases, we may agree to cap our fees for a given project. Some recent sample prices include:

$3,000 – Opposition to Defendants’ motion to implead alleged joint tortfeasors.

$5,000 – Opposition to motion to dismiss in pharmaceutical case.

$8,000 – Opposition to motion to dismiss in multiparty insurance bad faith case.

$8,500 – Opposition to foreign manufacturer’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

$12,000 – Package of four Daubert briefs in products liability multi-district litigation.

$15,000 – Opposition to motion to dismiss in complex Constitutional case.

$45,000 – Response to motion for summary judgment in a mass tort case.

Rush Pricing

Rush pricing is available for briefs needed within one to five days. If you have a rush project, you should call our office number at 614-992-2277 and also fill out the contact form below. We will get back to you as soon as we can.