Brian O’Shea

About Brian O’Shea

Brian O’Shea is a litigation attorney who focuses his practice on employment and labor law, professional malpractice, and complex litigation.

Prior to joining Carr Maloney, Brian was a Law Clerk to the Honorable Crystal Dixon Mittelstaedt, Associate Judge for the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland. As Judge Mittelstaedt’s law clerk, Brian authored multiple written legal opinions in civil and criminal post-conviction proceedings involving allegedly illegal sentences and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Brian graduated from the George Washington University Law School with honors, where he was on the Editorial Board for the Federal Communications Law Journal and published “A New Method to Address Cyberbullying in the United States.” He was also a member of the National Security Law Association and the Criminal Law Society. While attending Law School, Brian was a Law Clerk for both the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

Brian graduated summa cum laude with an undergraduate degree in Politics from Saint Anselm College, where he received the President’s Award for Academic Excellence and was a member of the Pi Sigma Alpha, Delta Epsilon Sigma, and Pi Gamma Mu national honor societies.

Associate, Carr Maloney PC

Essential Businesses Face Potential Class Action Exposure From Employees Over Coronavirus Crisis

Due to the ongoing coronavirus crisis, state and local governments across the country have ordered almost all businesses to close.  Tens of millions of employees in all fifty states have had to adapt to a new reality of working from home.  But this new reality is not the reality for every business.  Many “essential” businesses, including certain manufacturers and retailers, providers of emergency services, grocery stores, and sanitation companies, have continued their operations during the crisis.  Their employees are expected to report to work. Just because a business qualifies as “essential,” however, does not mean that business [...]

By |2020-04-09T09:42:32-04:00April 2nd, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , , |

Plaintiffs Quickly Filing Class Actions Over COVID-19

As we all know, the world has been dominated by COVID-19 for the last several weeks and tens of thousands of people have already been infected with the virus in the United States. We have seen drastic changes in the economy and our daily lives. We have also seen the first wave of class action lawsuits filed against businesses in connection with COVID-19.  Plaintiffs are alleging that businesses misrepresented their products and services with respect to protecting individuals from illness and that businesses negligently exposed individuals to COVID-19. The following are just a few of such [...]

By |2020-04-09T09:44:35-04:00March 26th, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , |

Thinking of Suing Over Baseball Sign Stealing? Think Again.

The old elephant in the room of Major League Baseball has reared its ugly head once again:  cheating.  More specifically, sign stealing.  Cheating and baseball have a long marriage.  The 1951 New York Giants, in fact, won maybe the most famous pennant in baseball history by illegally stealing signs. Technology, however, has changed sign stealing from an old baseball tradition into something more like a large-scale fraud.  On January 13, 2020, Major League Baseball completed its investigation of an illegal sign stealing scheme by the Houston Astros—an investigation that it has called the most extensive investigation in [...]

By |2020-02-03T10:27:51-05:00February 3rd, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action, General|Topics: , |

The Future of Class Actions in The Self-Driving Vehicle Industry

For years, experts have forecasted that our streets will soon be filled by autonomous, self-driving vehicles.  Rather than sitting behind the wheel and worrying about traffic and other motorists, we will be able to ride in comfort in our vehicles while watching television, surfing the Internet, or catching up on emails—all as the vehicle safely drives itself.  While the full impact of autonomous vehicles remains a mystery, eventually, they are likely to revolutionize the way we travel. One thing that is certain, however, is that as we adapt to self-driving vehicles (and they adapt to us), there [...]

By |2020-01-13T11:39:01-05:00January 13th, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , |

The Vaping Industry: Targeted By Class Action Lawsuits

In recent decades, there has been a significant decline in cigarette use, especially among the younger generation. Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, have begun to fill that void. E-cigarettes, while marketed as a cooler and safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, operate in almost the same way as traditional cigarettes. They contain nicotine-infused water that users inhale as vapor. They also come in a variety of different flavors, including cotton candy, chocolate, bubble gum, and crème brulee. A significant number of class action lawsuits, however, have accompanied the rise in popularity of e-cigarettes. Recently, the Los Angeles [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:21:24-05:00November 8th, 2019|Practice Areas: Class Action, Product Liability|Topics: , , |

Ninth Circuit Certifies Minor League Baseball Wage and Hour Class Action

On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that minor league baseball players in Arizona and Florida could join minor leaguers in California in a multi-state employment class action against major league baseball ownership and its franchises. The players claim that baseball’s owners and teams failed to comply with the federal Fair LaborStandards Act and Arizona, California, and Florida labor laws by not paying them the required minimum wage. While the players were paid a minimum wage for a 40-hour work week, they claim they were required to work much [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:20:27-05:00September 9th, 2019|Practice Areas: Labor & Employment|Topics: , |

D.C. District Court Dismisses Proposed Class Action Against The George Washington University Alleging Mismanagement of Workers’ Retirement Savings

On Monday, July 15, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against The George Washington University. The suit was filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Court held that Plaintiff Melissa Stanley lacked standing to sue because she explicitly gave up her right to sue as part of a 2016 settlement with the University. Stanley filed the instant lawsuit against the University in April 2018, alleging that the University, its board of trustees, and its plan administration committee breached their fiduciary duty by burdening Stanley’s [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:19:27-05:00July 16th, 2019|Practice Areas: General, Labor & Employment|Topics: , , |

SCOTUS Holds that Third-Party Defendants Cannot Remove Class Actions from State to Federal Court

On May 28, 2019, in a 5-4 decision, in which Justice Thomas sided with the Court’s “liberal” justices, the Supreme Court held in Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Jackson that a third-party defendant cannot use the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to remove a class action from state to federal court. This case began when Citibank filed a debt-collection action in state court in North Carolina against respondent George Jackson, who borrowed money on a Citibank credit card to buy a home water-filtration system. In response, Jackson filed a counterclaim against Citibank and a third-party class action [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:18:10-05:00May 29th, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: , |

The Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Classwide Arbitration

On April 24, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court held that an ambiguous arbitration clause is not sufficient under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to force class arbitration on a non-consenting party. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-1988. The Court concluded that lower courts may not draw an inference from an ambiguous agreement that the parties consented to class arbitration and that neither silence nor ambiguity can establish a party’s consent to class arbitration under the FAA. This is because, according to the Court, parties’ consent to arbitrate is the foundational principle of arbitration agreements. Lamps Plus [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:17:43-05:00May 6th, 2019|Practice Areas: Labor & Employment|Topics: , |

SCOTUS Holds that Rule 23(f) Class Certification Appeal Deadline is not Subject to Equitable Tolling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(f), a federal appeals court may hear an appeal from an order granting or denying class certification if the appeal is filed within 14 days after the trial court’s order is entered.  The Supreme Court took up the question as to whether the deadline could be extended under equitable tolling principles. On February 26, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held in Nutraceutical v. Lambert that equitable tolling does not apply to extend the 14-day deadline to appeal an order denying or granting class certification under Federal Rule 23(f). In [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:16:20-05:00March 1st, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: , |

The Electric Scooter Revolution Hits a Roadblock

We are living through the early days of a revolution.  Not a political revolution; rather, an electric scooter revolution.  No matter where you go in Washington, D.C. and in many other cities around the country, you are likely to bump into an electronic scooter, maybe even literally.  Electronic scooter use has taken off because they provide a cheap, easy, and environmentally-friendly way to travel.  Twice each day during rush hour, commuters are forced to share the streets and sidewalks with scooter riders.  Popular electronic scooter companies such as Lift, Bird, and Lime have just begun to tap into this popular new [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:15:54-05:00March 1st, 2019|Practice Areas: Product Liability|Topics: |

SCOTUS Hears Arguments to Equitable Tolling Doctrine for Class Certification Appeal

On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court heard  oral argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094, to determine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline to file for permission to appeal an order granting or denying a class-action certification is subject to equitable exceptions. Rule 23(f) provides that the court of appeals may hear an appeal from an order granting or denying class certification.  To appeal the order, the party must petition the court of appeals for permission within 14 days after the order is entered. In Lambert, Respondent Troy Lambert filed a class action [...]

By |2019-11-26T13:15:32-05:00November 28th, 2018|Practice Areas: Consumer Protection|Topics: , |