Photo of Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup has a wide-ranging complex litigation practice representing highly regulated businesses in class actions and other high-stakes disputes. He has built a successful record of defending clients from consumer protection claims asserted in class-action lawsuits and other multistate proceedings, many of which were defeated through dispositive pre-trial motions.
Andrew is co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation practice group.

Andrew has helped his clients achieve successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, including through trial and appeal. He has helped his clients prevail in litigation against putative class representatives, government agencies, and commercial entities. Representative victories include:

  • Delivered wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of large financial companies related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous lenders accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recent recognition as a "Class Action Group Of The Year."
  • Successfully defending several of the nation’s leading financial institutions in a wide variety of litigation and arbitration proceedings involving alleged violations of RICO, FCRA, TILA, TCPA, FCBA, ECOA, EFTA, FACTA, and state consumer protection and unfair and deceptive acts or practices statutes, as well as claims involving breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and other torts.
  • Successfully defended several of the nation’s leading companies and brands from claims that they deceptively marketed their products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims.

Because many of Andrew’s clients are subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew has significant experience successfully invoking federal preemption to defeat litigation.

Andrew also advises clients on their arbitration agreements. He has successfully helped numerous clients avoid multi-district class-action litigation by successfully enforcing the institutions’ arbitration agreements.

Clients praise Andrew for his personal attention to their matters, his responsiveness, and his creative strategies. Based on his “big wins in his class action practice,” Law360 named Mr. Soukup a "Class Action Rising Star."

Prior to practicing law, Andrew worked as a journalist.

Defendants often consider whether weak class allegations can be stricken at the pleading stage, leaving just a low-exposure individual claim to defend.  That tactic may have a great chance of success—especially when a complaint asserts state-law claims on behalf of a nationwide class or challenges multiple misrepresentations—in light of a recent Fifth Circuit decision approving that strategy.

In Elson v. Black, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 111317 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023), plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that the defendants made various misrepresentations about a massager.  Plaintiffs sought a nationwide class and, in the alternative, seven subclasses representing the seven states where they reside.  The district court granted the defendants’ motion to strike the class allegation, a decision the Fifth Circuit upheld on several grounds.

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Upholds Early Dismissal of Class Allegations at Pleading Stage

In a one-line order issued last week, the Supreme Court dismissed In Re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, one of the most significant cases about the attorney-client privilege in decades.  The dismissal came just two weeks after oral argument.  The Court explained that the writ of certiorari had been “improvidently granted,” meaning the Court should

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s application of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel to negligence claims arising out of an MDL—potentially raising the stakes for bellwether trials that are not considered binding by the district court at the outset and the impact that rulings in those cases could have on later decisions.

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Applies Offensive Collateral Estoppel in Subsequent Mass Tort Proceedings

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case to resolve a circuit split that has serious implications for companies who are unsuccessful in their efforts to enforce arbitration provisions in federal district courts. 

In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, No. 22-105, the defendant moved to compel arbitration in two putative class actions.  The motions to compel were denied, and the defendant sought stays while it appealed the denials—which the Federal Arbitration Act gives defendants an automatic right to do.  See 9 U.S.C. § 16.  Both motions to stay were denied, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed both decisions.

Continue Reading SCOTUS Set to Resolve Circuit Split over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeal

The First Circuit recently vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a proposed class action settlement “because the absence of separate settlement counsel for distinct groups of class members makes it too difficult to determine whether the settlement treated class members equitably.” Murray v. Grocery Deliver E-Servs. USA Inc., — F.4th —, 2022

The First Circuit recently revived consumer deception claims challenging the safety and testing of a car booster seat manufactured by Evenflo, in a case that potentially makes it easier for class-action plaintiffs to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements in the First Circuit when they only allege an economic injury. 

Continue Reading First Circuit Holds Alleged Overpayment Enough for Article III Standing

If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound?  Philosophers disagree.  If a product contains a contaminant but no one gets sick, did it cause an injury?  Judges disagree.

In the 2000s, enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys attempted to push the boundaries of existing tort law by arguing that plaintiffs are entitled to damages for defects even when they cause no physical injury.  These so-called “no-injury” theories of liability were largely rejected by courts.  E.g., Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab’ys, 283 F.3d 315, 320–21 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissing “no-injury products liability law suit”); Johnson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4494284, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2014) (recognizing that in the “consumer product context, courts routinely find lack of standing where—while a product may have been defective in the hands of others—the individual plaintiffs did not suffer the defect and, therefore, suffered no injury”).

While these cases closed the door on “no-injury” product liability claims, they left open the possibility of other “no-injury” claims, such as claims that a manufacturing defect breached a warranty or constituted fraud.  E.g., Cole v. Gen. Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Notably in this case, plaintiffs may bring claims under a contract theory based on the express and implied warranties they allege.”).

Whether and when “no-injury” claims are viable is a hotly debated question.  As more fully discussed below, courts disagree on whether a plaintiff who has purchased a contaminated or defective product—but who has successfully used the product for its intended purpose while suffering no physical injury—can maintain a claim.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Does Purchasing a Defective or Contaminated Product Always Cause an Article III Injury?

As plaintiffs continue to rely on the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to bring greenwashing suits, a recent D.C. Superior Court decision imposes limits on their ability to allege that a company’s general commitments to “sustainability” can constitute actionable misrepresentations.

Continue Reading Aspirational Statements of “Sustainability” Not Actionable Under D.C. Consumer Protection Statute

In a recent decision, a federal judge granted summary judgment for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finding that the LBC cryptocurrency token qualifies as a security.  While the ruling is confined to this specific token, it represents a victory for the SEC’s assertions that many cryptocurrencies, including so called “utility tokens,” represent securities that need to be registered with the agency.  The Court also held that the makers of the LBC token, LBRY, Inc., had fair notice that the token was subject to the securities laws.  Considering the ongoing class actions and enforcement proceedings litigating this issue across several cases, companies operating in the cryptocurrency space, including cryptocurrency exchanges, should follow this development to assess any possible impact on their businesses.

Continue Reading S.E.C. Wins Summary Judgment Determination That Cryptocurrency Token Qualifies as a Security

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 163 (2016), as revised (Feb. 9, 2016), the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a plaintiff’s claims. While that decision left some questions unanswered, recent Court of Appeals decisions have applied its reasoning to broader situations, such as holding that an unaccepted refund offer made prior to litigation does not deprive a plaintiff of standing to sue.  Adam v. Barone, 41 F.4th 230, 234 (3d Cir. 2022).

Another court recently added a twist to the analysis, holding that offering a full refund may make dismissal appropriate under the prudential mootness doctrine.  See Sharp v. FCA US LLC, 2022 WL 14721245 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 25, 2022).

Continue Reading Even After Campbell-Ewald, a Refund Offer Can Still Sometimes Moot a Case