Brian D. Gross

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a military contractor based on the government contractor defense. The court agreed that the government approved reasonably precise specifications, the military equipment conformed to those specifications and the contractor had no duty to warn due to the government’s demonstrated knowledge of the hazard.

On an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeals overturned a district court’s remand order. In reversing the remand decision, the court adopted the argument presented, which created a new standard in the circuit for triggering removal. The court held that the 30-day removal clock is not triggered until “an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper” makes the grounds for removal “unequivocally clear and certain.”

On an issue of first impression in Rhode Island, obtained a dismissal on behalf of several insurance companies that faced a direct claim by a plaintiff who claimed that the insurance companies’ former insured manufactured asbestos-containing products which caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent. The Court agreed with the argument that the language of R.I. General Laws § 27-7-2 and its exceptions are clear and unambiguous and, therefore, the Court must apply the “natural and generally accepted meaning” of the term bankruptcy, which does not encompass dissolution. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims were barred as a matter of law, and the Court granted the insurers’ motion to dismiss.

Obtained dismissals of more than 60 asbestos claims against an aerospace company in cases throughout the United States. As National Coordinating Counsel for the company’s products liability litigation, MG+M developed and implemented an innovative government contractor defense that has greatly reduced the client’s potential exposure.

Won summary judgment dismissing more than $3 million in wrongful death claims against a multi-national plastics manufacturer by establishing that the client had no duty to warn and that the decedent had not relied on any representations by the client.

Won a jury verdict in a multi-million-dollar trial against a 54-year-old plaintiff with pleural mesothelioma. By devoting the appropriate resources to pretrial investigation, MG+M was able to identify a significant weakness inherent in the plaintiff’s claim and called witnesses who impugned plaintiff’s credibility concerning his alleged use of the client’s product. After an 11-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict in approximately three hours.

Successfully defended a corrugated board manufacturer in a suit by a seriously injured interstate truck driver. Through intimate knowledge of federal and state trucking regulations, MG+M was able to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries were barred by his own negligence. 

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of officers and directors of a professional sports league. Convinced the judge to divide discovery into phases, and allow discovery concerning plaintiffs’ alleged damages to proceed first. Following the conclusion of the first phase of discovery, convinced the court that plaintiffs could not prove an essential element of their claims, namely that they suffered monetary damages as a result of defendants’ actions.

Successfully represented a multinational aircraft company in the appeal of a remand decision by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s remand order and adopted MG+M’s argument that established a new standard for the Ninth Circuit whereby the thirty-day removal clock is not triggered until “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper” makes the grounds for removal “unequivocally clear and certain.”