Areas of Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Antitrust & Trade Regulation
- Business & Commercial Litigation
- Class Action Defense & Multi-District Litigation
- Products Liability
Peer Reviews5.0/5.0Peer RatingNo feedback is available.The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.*Individual reviews provided before 2009 are not displayed
Experience & CredentialsPositionPartnerAdmission DetailsAdmitted in 1982, Louisiana
1984, M.D. La.
1985, 5th Cir.
1985, S.D. Miss.
1985, U.S. Supreme Court
1987, W.D. La.
1991, District of Columbia
1999, 8th Cir.
2004, 11th Cir.
2008, S.D. Fla.
2009, W.D. Ark.
2010, S.D. N.Y.
2014, W.D. Okla.
2015, 10th Cir.
1983, E.D. La.Law School AttendedTulane University Law School
Class of 1982
cum laudeUniversity AttendedLouisiana State University
Class of 1979
FinanceBirth InformationBorn in 1957
New Orleans, Louisiana, April 24, 1957Associations & Memberships
•American Bar Association
•Section of Litigation (Corporate Counsel and Class Action Committees)
•Section of International Law (International Arbitration Committee)
•Forum on FranchisingBar FellowshipMember, Board of Directors, Louisiana Bar Foundation, 2004-2007.Representative CasesRepresentative Matters: Dinwiddie v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85045 (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2015). Mr. Casey was lead counsel for Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. in Oklahoma federal court in a nationwide class action brought on behalf of about 200, 000 purchasers of certain Suzuki vehicles. Plaintiffs claimed that the vehicles were defective because the headlamps had a condition that allegedly created the potential for vehicle fires. In response to plaintiffs' complaint, which sought economic loss damages for the alleged defect and for Suzuki's alleged negligent implementation of the recall, the firm filed a motion to dismiss all causes of action. The motion was granted in full without leave for plaintiffs to amend.; Harding v. MidSouth Bank, N.A. Mr. Casey and other firm attorneys represented a bank in connection with allegations that it manipulated its posting procedures for debit transactions. The case was brought by multiple plaintiffs' firms as a 10-year, nationwide class action. The suit was essentially identical to dozens of class actions brought against other banks across the country, which most banks settled after classes were certified. In response to the bank's Motion to Compel Arbitration, argued by Mr. Casey, a federal court ordered the case to arbitration despite that the arbitration provision at issue had several non-standard provisions. Harding v. MidSouth Bank, N.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143984 (W.D. La. Oct. 3, 2012). Thereafter, the bank filed a motion to dismiss in the arbitration and the arbitrator dismissed the claims against the bank on the merits in 2014.; Strong, derivatively on behalf of Tidewater Inc. v. Taylor, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29234 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2013); and Strong, derivatively on behalf of Tidewater Inc. v. Taylor, 877 F. Supp. 2d 433 (E.D. La. 2012). Mr. Casey and other firm attorneys defended Tidewater Inc., a corporation which is a leading provider of offshore service vessels to the global energy industry, in a shareholder derivative action. The suit arose out of with alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. After successfully staying discovery pending rulings on pre-trial motions, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case because of the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead that prior demand on the Board of Directors would have been futile. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff then file a Motion to Stay, which defendants opposed, in order to provide plaintiff with an opportunity to dispense with the demand futility allegations and instead pursue a formal demand on the Board of Directors. The Court denied that motion as well and dismissed the case with prejudice.; Mr. Casey co-led a team of Jones Walker attorneys and paralegals from several offices in 2010 in defending a major motor vehicle manufacturer in 38 arbitrations. The arbitrations were brought by dealerships in five states (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee). The arbitrations were conducted under specially-targeted Congressional legislation which allowed the dealerships a one-time opportunity to contest the scheduled terminations of their dealer agreements.; Cole v. General Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2007). Mr. Casey served as primary counsel for the defendant in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of 225, 000 purchasers of products in every state in the nation. The United States Court of Appeals issued an opinion upholding the defendant's position that a nationwide class action would be contrary to law. Mr. Casey argued the appeal. The case has been dismissed.; Knoth v. General Motors Corp., 08-80001 (S.D. Fla.). Mr. Casey served as primary counsel for the defendant in a putative class action brought on behalf of Florida consumers who purchased vehicles manufactured at a plant in Mexico. The allegation was that the vehicles were damaged by storms while the vehicles were in port in Veracruz, Mexico, awaiting shipment to the United States. The matter has been dismissed.; Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 493 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2007). Mr. Casey, along with other Jones Walker lawyers, defended a not-for-profit hospital in litigation where plaintiffs contended that the hospital overcharged uninsured patients for services rendered over a ten year period. The firm successfully defeated class certification in the district court, and the appellate court affirmed. There were approximately 50 similar class actions on the same issue against other hospitals around the country, but this was the first favorable ruling on certification for any hospital.; Atlas Roofing Corporation class actions (E.D. La.). Mr. Casey served as primary counsel for Atlas Roofing, a major manufacturer of roofing shingles, in a series of three class actions brought against the company. The suits alleged the defective manufacture of shingles. All of the cases were removed to federal court, and subsequently transferred before one federal district judge. In the first matter, we defeated class certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class (the rule pertaining to an injunctive class). See Hilton v. Atlas Roofing Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88290 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2006). In the second class action, we were successful in having the class claims dismissed inasmuch as plaintiff did not timely move for class certification. See Sewell v. Atlas Roofing Corp., 2007 WL 1198921 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2007). In the third class action, plaintiff's request for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) (a damages class) was also denied. See Welch v. Atlas Roofing Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81563 (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2007).; Massey v. ICF Emergency Services, 07-462 (M.D. La.). We represented the contractor managing the State of Louisiana's multi-billion-dollar Road Home program (for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) in a class action brought on behalf of program applicants. We filed a motion to dismiss (argued by Mr. Casey) which was granted at the outset of the case.; In re The Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 1395 (E.D. La.). Mr. Casey served as Lead and Liaison Counsel in an MDL on behalf of a defendant insurer. The MDL was made up of eight nationwide class actions alleging discriminatory pricing over a 60 year period by 80 companies acquired by the client. The cases were filed in four different states by a group of about 25 law firms. The case received press attention at various stages in publications such as The Wall Street Journal. In 2001 and 2002, we successfully removed all cases to federal court and obtained the formation of the MDL over plaintiffs' counsel's opposition. We also represented the client in the class certification proceedings. The district judge denied certification. In re Industrial Life Ins. Litig., 208 F.R.D. 571 (E.D. La.. 2002). In August of 2003 the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, reversed the district court's legal analysis without deciding whether a class should be certified. In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., Industrial Life Ins. Litig., 365 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2004). However, on remand, the district court again denied certification. The matter was settled on an individual basis thereafter, and all cases were dismissed in 2007.