Brian Myers is a seasoned litigation attorney representing clients of all sizes—from SMEs to Fortune 500 companies—in complex litigation matters.
He has guided clients through all stages of the litigation process, including trials and arbitrations in both state and federal courts and before multiple administrative agencies across the country. Brian has focused experience in consumer class action litigation, including data privacy actions and proceedings under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), Right of Publicity Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Brian also has experience litigating technology disputes between software developers and their clients, as well as experience representing design and construction professionals in breach of contract and construction defect litigation.
- Obtained dismissal of third-party claims for contribution and breach of contract brought by a company against a staffing agency, when the agency’s employees brought a claim alleging the company and its payroll provider used fingerprint- based time clocks without complying with the notice and consent provisions of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). The trial court granted a motion to dismiss.
- Resolved class action claim against energy provider alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising out of claims that the energy provider’s marketing vendor placed calls to persons on the Do Not Call Registry.
- Resolved competing breach of contract claims between accounting firm and software developer arising out of accounting firm’s termination of contract for development of digital document archiving system on alleged delays in development process.
- Obtained two appellate court rulings affirming trial court’s dismissal of construction defect claims against construction and design industry clients based on economic loss doctrine.
- Defeated plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a suit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on garnishments of bank accounts where the defendant used outdated statutory exemption claim forms. The trial court agreed that the differences between the outdated exemption claim forms and the current forms were immaterial and that individual issues between class members and the named Plaintiff defeated commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.