The Law Office of Joseph P. Garland
Joseph Garland’s practice before opening his own office was as a partner and before that as an associate at several New York firms. He was admitted to practice in the State of New York in 1982 and to the bars of the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York in 1983 and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits in 2001 and 2000. He has argued appeals before both the Second and the Third Circuits as well as motions before federal district courts throughout the United States. He was solely responsible for a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and for a bench trial in the Northern District of Indiana, and was second-chair for a securities class action jury trial in the Northern District of Illinois.He has used that litigation experience as a basis for providing counseling to a small company in the VoIP and ISP sectors and is a member of the Telecommunications Committee of the New York City Bar Association.
In May 1981, Mr. Garland received his J.D. degree from Columbia Law School, in New York, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar in each of his three years. He graduated with a B.A. cum laude and highest honors from Manhattanville College in Purchase, New York in May 1978.
In recent years, Mr. Garland has represented a variety of clients involved in commercial litigation, including several telecommunications companies, an employee seeking a commission in excess of $500,000, and an advertising and promotional firm in litigation with competitors. He has advised a record store with respect to potential claims by a recording studio and by a movie production company. He represented a company providing information over the telephone in an antitrust and First Amendment claim against an incumbent local exchange carrier and the New York State Public Service Commission and an internet service provider in disputes with the provider of access to telephone lines. He also successfully obtained asylum in the U.S. after a trial on behalf of a Liberian national, which he handled as a pro bono matter.
Mr. Garland has broad experience in federal commercial class actions. These include a series of antitrust & telecommunications cases:
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko v. Bell Atlantic/Verizon v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko (U.S. Sup. Ct., 2d Cir., S.D.N.Y.): A class case that alleges Bell Atlantic (now Verizon Communications) violated the Federal Communications Act and the Sherman Act with respect to the provision by competitors of local telephone service. Mr. Garland successfully argued the appeal of the dismissal of the case to the Second Circuit, which in June 2002 became the first appellate court in the United States to permit antitrust claims to go forward for anti-competitive conduct by a Baby Bell that occurred after the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and also ruled that customers of Baby Bell competitors had standing to assert Communications Act and Sherman Act claims, 305 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2002). Trinko majority; Trinko dissent/concur
The Supreme Court took only the antitrust part of the case, and Don Verrilli of Jenner & Block argued for Trinko. The Court decided that the antitrust laws are an improper vehicle for claims that duties imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have caused injury. 540 U.S. 398 (2004). (Three Justices would not have reached the merits because they were of the view that Trinko had no standing to bring the antitrust claim in the first place.) (The parties’ briefs as well as the Justice Department/FTC amicus briefs are available at FindLaw, October 14, 2003). The case is proceeding on a claim for discrimination under the Federal Communications Act in the Southern District of New York.
Todd v. Exxon (2d Cir./S.D.N.Y./D.N.J.): A putative class action in which the Second Circuit reversed a dismissal of the case in another well-publicized December 2001 decision, 275 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001). The case asserts that the manner in which the major oil companies participate in salary surveys was a violation of the Sherman Act and resulted in employees of Exxon Corp. receiving reduced salaries. Mr. Garland is one of the two lawyers who initiated the case, which is now pending as part of an MDL proceeding in the District of New Jersey. John F. Carney, whose office is in Pelham, New York, argued the case to the Second Circuit and has been the major prosecutor of it, with several other firms.
In re Westchester County Commercial Solid Waste (S.D.N.Y.): Mr. Garland had significant responsibility in a case, recently settled for over $13 million, that alleged that the major commercial waste haulers in Westchester County, New York, engaged in a customer allocation scheme in violation of the Sherman Act. Again, John Carney and Miller Faucher & Cafferty in Philadelphia were the lead counsel.
Among Mr. Garland’s other antitrust class actions are ones claiming illegal tying arrangements by Visa and MasterCard to merchants (settled for $3 billion plus prospective relief) (E.D.N.Y.), conspiracy among auto manufacturers to restrict the importation of new vehicles into the United States from Canada (D. Me.), price-fixing by the major cigarette manufacturers (N.D. Ga.), and anti-competitive restrictions imposed upon retailers of disposable contact lens (M.D. Fla.). He is also counsel for plaintiffs in a number of antitrust class actions pending throughout the United States against incumbent local exchange carriers.
Securities class actions in which Mr. Garland is currently involved include cases concerning securities of FTD.com (Del. Chanc.), Tyco International (S.D.N.Y.), Global Crossing (S.D.N.Y.), JDS Uniphase (N.D. Cal.), Enron Corp. (ERISA claims) (S.D. Tex.), and HomeStore.com (C.D. Cal.). He is also among the firms representing plaintiffs in the multiple-issuer IPO Securities Litigation, pending in the Southern District of New York.
While at Rabin & Garland, Mr. Garland had responsibility for numerous securities class actions.
As to other types of federal class actions, Mr. Garland has had significant responsibility in Garb v. Poland (2d Cir., E.D.N.Y.), which is brought on behalf of Jews whose property was allegedly taken in violation of international law by the Polish Government after World War II. A motion to dismiss, argued for plaintiffs by Mr. Garland and another lawyer, was granted on sovereign immunity grounds. An appeal to the Second Circuit is pending. He has also been retained with respect to efforts to recover property and businesses in Poland and Hungary.
He also argued the Third Circuit appeal in Sagal v. First USA, a class action brought pursuant to the federal Truth-in-Lending Act.
Mr. Garland has published two articles. He is the co-author, with Brian Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Federal Securities Laws: The State of Affairs After Itoba, 20 Maryland Journal of International Law & Trade 235 (Fall 1996), which discusses the standards applied to determine whether foreign securities transactions are subject to American anti-fraud securities laws. He is the author of Übersicht über das Wettbewerbsrecht der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (Overview of the Antitrust Laws of The United States of America), 19 Der kaufmännische Geschäftsführer (1986) (translated into German), which appeared in a West German publication and provided general guidance to businessmen and firms concerning the impact of American antitrust law on their activities in the U.S.
