Photo of Paul Calfo

Paul Calfo

As part of his extensive products and toxic tort practice, Paul handles a diverse range of products cases from chemical exposure and contamination to heavy machinery and lithium-ion battery fires. His California-based practice includes handling individual cases as well as large, high-risk matters arising from mass casualty injury and death events. He regularly and directly manages state and nationwide coordinated, related, and multidistrict dockets of toxic tort litigation with exposure claims related to chemicals such as PFAS and minerals such as asbestos. Paul has also handled cases involving glyphosate and orally ingested products/supplements.

In Los Angeles County, Paul regularly handles cases that fall under California’s Section 36, which provides plaintiffs with various means to rapidly move complex cases to trial within four months. Although such motions are routinely filed by plaintiffs and granted, Paul’s dogged refusal to concede have led to courts ruling in his favor, defeating Section 36 motions and leading to favorable resolution for firm clients.

Paul also handles products liability matters for multi-national franchisor corporations. He understands the complex underlying business relationships of companies while also understanding the potential liability of a complicated component or end-product. He is especially enthusiastic about cases that require him to dive into new products, and he aims to convey clients’ missions to a jury. Paul also enjoys working closely with our clients to synthesize the research and development needed to make products safe so that innovation can flourish.

A member of the firm’s Mass Tort & Product Liability team, Paul was the first associate to join the Los Angeles office after its opening. This situation presented an unusual opportunity to support partners across various teams with a broad array of litigation. Even early in his practice, Paul cut his teeth by representing both plaintiffs and defendants in everything from breach of contract, real estate, and premises cases to complex credit lending and corporate ownership disputes. He quickly learned transferable skills and a strategic overview of how best to work up and resolve or push different types of cases to trial. Paul continues to spread his practice between product liability and a variety of complex commercial litigation, and clients appreciate his ability to assist with multiple matters.

Paul handles matters in state court, federal court, and arbitration. He has spent extensive time in the courtroom from the beginning of his career, thriving on litigation strategy, trial, and oral argument. With a passion for chewing on difficult problems and finding backdoor solutions, Paul is always thinking about the challenges of clients’ cases.

Outside of the courtroom, Paul is an active member of the firm. He is a frequent mentor and a member of firm committees, and he enjoys guiding new associates so they can realize their full potential. He is a regular mentor of our first-year associates, with his favorite phrase being, “Get comfortable being uncomfortable; that mindset is the best way to grow.”

Before joining the firm, Paul interned as a member of the White House Counsel’s Office, where he participated in the resolution of various policy issues and confronted constitutional questions on the separation of executive and congressional power. Paul assisted with executive branch ethics codes as well as legal research concerning executive orders and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He also assisted in preparing federal judicial nominees at all appellate levels for congressional hearings.

“With great power comes great responsibility,” and in the rapidly evolving landscape of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), the intersection of innovation and legal responsibility is becoming increasingly complex. As AI becomes more integrated into products and services across industries, matters regarding liability, regulation, and safety are raising questions about the tension between AI and liability. Courts must apply existing legal frameworks to this emerging technology while lawmakers play catch up and enact guardrails to ensure its safe and lawful use. This article explores the implications of AI in the context of product liability, focusing on recent litigation and potential theories of liability that companies must navigate as AI continues to permeate every sector of the economy.

There have been recent growing concerns regarding the inhalation of crystalline silica dust in the California stone countertop industry, with attempts by the California State Legislature to enact regulations improving the occupational safety of workers fabricating stone slab products.1, 2 As this proposed legislation has developed, multiple studies have been conducted regarding safety measures that can be implemented for stone fabrication workers. Notably, some of those studies have revealed that effective methods to reduce occupational exposure to silica dust during fabrication exist and are feasible to implement by employers. While the research in the California stone countertop industry is still ongoing, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) has found that combining engineering controls and safer work practices would help greatly reduce the risk of harmful exposure to respirable silica dust.3, 4 Employers following this combination suggested by NIOSH in 2024 should make it feasible to safely work with stone slab products in California.

 Michigan Grapples With Airport Authority Over Application of Federal Officer Removal Statute in PFAS Litigation

For the last several months, the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (Airport) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has been locked in an appellate battle with Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and State Attorney General Dana Nessel (collectively, Michigan) over whether the Airport may remove Michigan’s lawsuit over the Airport’s use of PFAS[1]-containing firefighting foam based on the federal officer removal doctrine.