How Felix Helps Clients
Felix’s work often focuses on two areas at the cutting edge of California law: (1) the law of protected speech, including the First Amendment, defamation, California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and the litigation privilege; and (2) the defense of class and representative actions, often through resisting class certification efforts or the enforcement of arbitration agreements. He also has unique expertise in handling appeals involving employment disputes and employer liability, commercial litigation, intellectual property, environmental litigation, unfair competition lawsuits, and federal and state securities issues.
Felix has argued appeals in the California Supreme Court and the California Courts of Appeal, and has been lead and amicus counsel in numerous proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, trial counsel and in-house legal departments often leverage Felix's input before an appeal begins. He provides critical advice on preserving issues and presenting evidence in the best posture for appeal. He prepares amicus briefs seeking to move or clarify the law in ways favorable to his clients and their members.
Felix is a partner at the firm. He has represented many significant companies and organizations, including Agilent Technologies, American Medical Response, Anschutz Entertainment Group, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, East West Bank, Ecolab, Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership, Lyft, Macy’s, the Neiman Marcus Group, Omega S.A., See’s Candy Shops, Shell Oil Company, the Southern California Gas Company, Taco Bell, the Washington Legal Foundation, Wells Fargo & Co., and Zumiez.
Felix previously practiced at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP and Littler Mendelson, P.C., where he focused on all aspects of labor and employment defense and counseling.
Miner v. Ecolab, Inc. (2019)
Ninth Circuit reversed order denying our client’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the district court was wrong to conclude the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver rendered the agreement unenforceable
Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019)
Filed amicus brief in support of media network urging the California Supreme Court to conclude that the anti-SLAPP statute can apply to employment claims; the California Supreme Court agreed the anti-SLAPP statute is not categorically inapplicable to employment claims
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018)
Filed amicus brief in support of employers urging the U.S. Supreme Court to determine class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements were enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and federal labor law; the U.S. Supreme Court agreed such waivers must be enforced
Dickinson v. Cosby (2018)
California Superior Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion of our client, an entertainment lawyer, to strike the claims against him, concluding that the attorney’s demand letter and press statements were activities protected by the anti-SLAPP statute and that the claims must be stricken because the plaintiff could not show the attorney made the statements with constitutional malice
Cotter v. Lyft, Inc. (2017)
Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed order approving a class action settlement
Angel v. Winograd (2016)
California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying our client’s anti-SLAPP motion and directed the court to strike the lawsuit seeking to hold our client liable for initiating a petition campaign to persuade a city council to pass legislation
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia (2015)
Filed amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state law disfavoring class arbitration waivers in consumer arbitration agreements; the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the waiver must be enforced
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. (2015)
Filed amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to conclude that an arbitration clause commonly used in many car sales contracts should be enforced because it was not unconscionable; the California Supreme Court agreed the clause was not unconscionable
Salinas v. Bennett (2008)
California Court of Appeal affirmed order granting summary judgment in favor of our clients, concluding that our clients—owners of a property where the plaintiff was injured when his automobile veered off the road following a car accident and struck a gas meter—owed no duty of care to the driver because the owners neither owned nor controlled the meter, which was located on a portion of their property over which the county had a right of way
- Northwestern University School of Law
J.D., cum laude, 1999
- University of California, Los Angeles
B.A., cum laude, 1996
- Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (2003-2004)
- Hon. Whitman Knapp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2001-2003)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
- Past member of the California State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts and the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s State Appellate Judicial Evaluation Committee
- The debate over Dynamex’s retroactivity heads to the California Supreme Court (Oct. 30, 2019) Daily J.
- 9th Circ. Could Mend Split On Class Rules For PAGA Claims (Sept. 13, 2019) Law360
- Assessing the Availability of Jury Trials for PAGA Claims (May 29, 2019) Law360
- Are Orders Denying Class Cert. Appealable In PAGA Cases? (Mar. 19, 2018) Law360
- Recent Developments in Class Action Law (Dec. 2017) Today’s General Counsel
- How Calif.’s Anti-SLAPP Law Affects Amended Complaints (Nov. 8, 2017) Law360
- When the 9th Circuit Turns to the California Supreme Court (Aug. 25, 2017) Daily J., p. 6
- Does California’s Anti-SLAPP Law Apply To Discrimination Claims? (June 9, 2017) Law360
- Does Anti-SLAPP Law Apply To Legal Malpractice Claims? (Feb. 13, 2017) Law360
- Helping Americans to Speak Freely (Dec. 15, 2016) The Federalist Society Review, Vol. 18, p. 46
- What Is 'Public Interest' Under California Anti-SLAPP Law? (Dec. 1, 2016) Law360
- Wage Issue Before California Supreme Court (Dec. 2016) Today’s General Counsel, Vol. 13, No. 6, p. 16
- When Demand Letters Constitute Extortion In California (Sept. 23, 2016) Law360
- State High Court Will Likely Adopt Federal de Minimis Rule (Sept. 2, 2016), Daily J., p. 7
- Revitalizing Calif.’s Often Overlooked Legislative Privilege (Aug. 9, 2016) Law360
- Ninth Circuit weighs key arbitration issues (Podcast) (July 2016), Daily J.
- Speaking Freely (Summer 2016) ABTL Report
- California’s Anti-SLAPP Law is Not Systematically Abused (June 30, 2016) Law360
- FAA Trumps State Law, Again (Mar. 16, 2016) Daily J.
- The Most Notable Decisions Concerning Arbitration in 2015 (Dec. 18, 2015) Daily J.
- 9th Circuit Could Soon Rule on PAGA Waiver Legality (Mar. 24, 2015) Daily J., p. 7
- The Fine Line Between Protected Demand Letters and Extortion (2015) California Litigation, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 11
- 9th Circuit Says Meal and Rest Break Laws Not Preempted (July 16, 2014) Daily J., p. 5
- Ninth Circuit Holds Federal Arbitration Act Preempts California Rule That Claims For Public Injunctive Relief Cannot Be Arbitrated (Spring 2014) Legal Insights
- Is Employment Arbitration At A Crossroads In 2014 (Jan. 10, 2014) Law360
- The Impact Of Individual Damages Issues On Class Certification After Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (Dec. 13, 2013) Washington Legal Foundation, Legal Backgrounder, Vol. 28, N
- The Changing State of Employment Arbitration (Nov. 4, 2013) The Recorder
- Focus on Arbitration: The Continuing Tug of War Between the U.S. and California Supreme Courts Over Arbitration Law (Fall 2013) ABTL Report
- Appellate Courts Sharply Disagree Over Continuing Impact of Concepcion (Dec. 12, 2012) Daily J., p. 7
- When are Claims Adjusters Exempt from Overtime Requirements? (Aug. 20, 2012) Daily J., p. 3
- 'Concepcion' May Kill State Arbitration Restrictions (Jan. 12, 2012) The Recorder [online exclusive]
- Class Action Certification Of Punitive Damages Claims After Wal-Mart v. Dukes (Nov. 18, 2011) Washington Legal Foundation, Legal Opinion Letter, Vol. 20, No. 26
- Appeals, Writs and Post-Trial Motions (Cal. State Bar, Lit. Section, June 2007) 2006 California Litigation Review
- Flawed Assumptions: A Critique of Garcia v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1998) Northwestern University Law Review