Photo of Lelia Ledain

Lelia Ledain

Lelia Ledain handles a wide range of high-stakes, complex, civil litigation in both federal and state courts, with a particular focus on employment matters, including discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower claims, as well as consumer protection, ERISA, business tort and breach of contract claims.

Lelia has extensive experience representing clients at all stages of litigation, from case inception through trial. In particular, she has drafted dispositive motions and briefs, taken and defended numerous fact and expert depositions, and prepared witnesses for trial.

Lelia maintains an active pro bono practice. Lelia has served as lead counsel in three jury trials in the Southern District of New York, where she conducted jury selection, delivered the opening and closing arguments, conducted direct- and cross- examinations, and argued numerous motions in limine, including a successful motion for mistrial.

Super Lawyers has recognized Lelia as a Litigation “Rising Star.”

Contact:Read more about Lelia LedainEmail

Extending its recent decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011, 1032 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed class certification in a false advertising case based in part on an unexecuted and “not yet fully developed” damages model.  The panel reasoned that the expert’s explanation of the damages model he proposed to (but had not yet) run established that the model “could reliably measure damages on a classwide basis and adequately for present purposes matched [plaintiff’s] theory of harm.”  The panel also confirmed that in some cases, false advertising plaintiffs can benefit from an inference of classwide materiality and reliance under California law.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages Model

Companies who rely on arbitration agreements that select the American Arbitration Association (AAA) consumer arbitration rules for dispute resolution should take note of a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit affirming the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and emphasizing the importance of proactively complying with the AAA’s rules and policies.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Decision Underscores Importance of Complying with AAA Rules

Companies whose agreements with consumers contain an arbitration clause that delegates certain decisions to an arbitrator to resolve should be mindful of a recent Fourth Circuit decision clarifying what disputes may be resolved by a court and what disputes may be resolved by an arbitrator.

In Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., — F. 4th –, 2025 WL 77181 (4th Cir. 2025), plaintiffs entered into two contracts with a financial institution:  a deposit agreement that contained an arbitration provision, and a promissory note related to a loan program that did not.  Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the financial institution, and the institution sought to enforce its arbitration provision. Continue Reading A Closer Look: Fourth Circuit Upholds Unambiguous Delegation Clause post- Coinbase

The Third Circuit recently clarified when court-ordered discovery is necessary to determine whether a dispute should be subject to arbitration.  In Young v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., — F.3rd —, 2024 WL 4509767, at *4 (3d Cir. Oct. 17, 2024), plaintiff sued the consumer reporting agency for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act after Experian issued an erroneous credit report.  Experian filed a motion to compel arbitration based on a later-signed agreement that plaintiff had with an Experian affiliate.  The district court denied Experian’s motion without prejudice, and granted leave for Experian to re-file a motion to compel arbitration after the parties engaged in limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability.  Experian appealed.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Third Circuit Clarifies When Court-Ordered Discovery Into Issues of Arbitrability Is Necessary.