Ryan M. Poteet

About Ryan M. Poteet

Ryan Poteet is a litigation attorney who focuses his practice on Business Law and Commercial Litigation, Class Action Litigation, Employment and Labor Law, General Liability, Health Care and Insurance Coverage.

Prior to joining Carr Maloney, Ryan was a Senior Associate and Assistant General Counsel for a boutique law firm in Alexandria, Virginia representing clients in administrative litigation before federal agencies and throughout the rulemaking process.  He has conducted internal investigations, served as regulatory counsel to Fortune 50 corporations and assisted his clients in navigating the complexities of federal election law.  Ryan also worked for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee where he handled bankruptcy and intellectual property matters and judicial nominations.

While at Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Ryan was a member of the Moot Court and Mock Trial Honor Boards and received awards for Excellence in Appellate and Trial Advocacy, as well as top brief awards in national competitions.  Following graduation from law school, Ryan clerked for the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence where he assisted in briefing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and state and federal appellate courts.

Associate, Carr Maloney PC

NLRB Finds Employers Can Modify Arbitration Agreements After Suit to Prohibit Participation in Collective Actions

On August 14, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that employers can revise mandatory arbitration agreements to prohibit employees from joining class and collective actions even after a suit has been filed. The NLRB further held that employers may condition continued employment on the execution of the amended agreement and threaten to terminate those who refuse. Neither action was found to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits employers from interfering with employees’ union-related activities under Section 7 of the Act. In the case at bar, a group of employees filed a [...]

By |2019-08-21T16:15:14-04:00August 21st, 2019|Practice Areas: Labor & Employment|Topics: |

SCOTUS Punts Ruling on Cy Pres Doctrine in Class Action Settlements

The Supreme Court issued its much-awaited ruling in Frank v. Gaos (17-961).  Court watchers anticipated that the Court would resolve the circuit split concerning the propriety of the cy pre doctrine in class action settlements.  Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation filed suit against Google alleging the company shared users’ search information with third-party vendors and, therefore, violated various common law privacy interests and state and federal statutes.  Because the class consisted of approximately 129 million individuals who used Google’s search engine, any monetary award to individual class members would be incredibly small.  Class counsel and Google [...]

By |2019-05-15T12:42:57-04:00April 23rd, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: , , , |

SCOTUS to Evaluate Fairness of Cy Pres and Class Settlement Awards

On April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 to determine whether a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that  settlements binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Cy pres is French for “as near close as possible.”  The purpose of the doctrine in class action litigation is to allow unclaimed funds to be distributed to organizations that advance the interests of the litigation, instead of returning remaining funds to the defendant.  [...]

By |2019-05-15T12:42:57-04:00April 30th, 2018|Practice Areas: General|Topics: |

D.C. Circuit Confirms Statutory Violations Alone Are Not Enough For Standing to Sue

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s holding in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), federal courts routinely struggle to determine when a statutory violation will rise to the level of a concrete harm that will confer standing to bring suit.  For instance, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida found that a procedural violation of the FCRA—without any attendant harm—was a concrete injury enabling plaintiffs’ lawsuit to proceed.  See Hargrett v. Amazon.com DEDC LLC, 235 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (click here for additional analysis).  On the other hand, [...]

By |2019-05-15T12:39:01-04:00March 12th, 2018|Practice Areas: Consumer Protection|

PACER Class Action Proceeds with Partial Win for Plaintiffs

On March 31, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment in the PACER class action litigation that the federal judiciary improperly spent $198 million in fees collected through the courts’ public records platform. In National Veterans Legal Services v. United States of America, three nonprofits filed a class action in 2016 against the United States alleging that thousands of PACER users were overcharged in accessing court documents and that the class is entitled to a refund under the Little Tucker Act.  The named plaintiffs, National Veterans Legal [...]

By |2019-05-15T12:40:59-04:00March 8th, 2018|Practice Areas: Consumer Protection|