Photo of Sean Bond-Downey

Sean Bond-Downey

As a student, Sean always knew his strengths lay in research, writing, analysis, and argument, and he thrived on his high school debate team. He knew a career in law would make use of all of these skills, and he readily gravitated toward litigation during law school.

During his summer associateship, Sean was introduced to mass tort and product liability litigation and found that he enjoyed the challenge of legal research and writing in this area. He began his career handling mold exposure cases, as well as suits involving cleaning products and accompanying chemical exposure allegations. In addition, Sean also has an interest in energy and environmental law.

Sean performs extensive document review for cases, assists with depositions and cross examinations, and drafts summary judgment motions and briefings in preparation for trial. He’s known not only for his research and writing skills, but also for his quick response time: Sean’s goal is to get partners and clients the answers they need as soon as they need them.

In recent years, numerous businesses have successfully enforced broad arbitration clauses, particularly those embedded in terms and conditions of online service agreements. We previously discussed a noteworthy example from a recent New Jersey appeals panel decision.1 The underlying cause of action in that case stemmed from a motor vehicle collision that occurred while plaintiff was a passenger in a ride share vehicle. The court sent the dispute to arbitration, enforcing an arbitration clause that was included in an the rideshare company’s food-delivery agreement that plaintiff’s daughter had agreed to when ordering food. Although an entirely different set of facts, the arbitration clause contained in the food delivery service agreement was deemed applicable to the claims of a passenger in a rideshare vehicle.2 This is just one recent example of how defendant corporations have succeeded in enforcing ostensibly unrelated arbitration clauses to a spectrum of tangential claims. Indeed, arbitration provisions have proven remarkably effective across a wide spectrum of legal matters, including personal injury claims, discrimination suits, and potentially even antitrust cases. Courts have shown a broad willingness to generally enforce arbitration clauses, including those included in “clickwrap” agreements, which require users to agree to terms and conditions before using a website, completing a software installation, or making an online purchase, that subject consumers to arbitration provisions through everyday digital services.

Inflated jury verdicts in the first two preterm infant formula cases tried in the country have raised significant concerns for manufacturers and the broader medical community. These cases not only spotlight the legal challenges faced by manufacturers of highly specialized products, such as the formulas involved in these cases, but also underscore the potentially devastating effects on the availability and use of essential formula to provide preterm infants with adequate nutrition. In response to these bloated jury verdicts, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Benjamin Hoffman, M.D., issued a statement declaring that preterm infant formula “is a routine and necessary part of care of these preterm infants” and warning that “[c]ourtrooms are not the best place to determine clinical recommendations for the care of infants . . . we must take steps to protect the supply of infant formula for those who need it.”