Contact Info
Download vCard: vCard
Phone: 404.504.7692
Fax: 404.365.9532
Email: Click Here
Bob Alpert is a partner in the Commercial, Class Action and Products Liability Litigation Practices. Mr. Alpert has represented clients in a wide variety of complex, high exposure litigation matters throughout the United States, including the following:
- National coordinating and lead trial counsel for national manufacturer in connection with its defense of public nuisance and personal injury claims arising out of alleged exposure to lead paint.
- National coordinating counsel for one of the country’s largest retailers in connection with its defense of multiple putative class action and individual cases arising from the sale of pressure treated wood.
- National coordinating counsel for international real estate developer in connection with defending more than 50 individual, multi-party and putative class action lawsuits arising out of the development of residential resort communities.
- Coordinating and lead trial counsel for major lender in connection with pursuing creditors’ rights claims against borrowers and defending against purported lender liability claims.
- National coordinating and lead trial counsel for insurance association in connection with defending multiple putative nationwide class actions arising out of association membership benefits.
- Regional coordinating counsel for international pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with defending claims arising from the sale of prescription medication.
Mr. Alpert’s extensive class action experience includes defending clients in product liability, consumer fraud, insurance, real estate and sales tax class action cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Alpert’s practice also focuses on representing clients in connection with complex insurance coverage disputes. He advises clients on matters involving first-party and third-party insurance coverage, including issues relating to commercial general liability, professional liability, property, automotive and D&O liability policies, and has represented clients in state and federal courts throughout the U.S. in declaratory judgment and other insurance coverage litigation.
Recent Experience
- Specialty Finance Group LLC v. Minor Family Hotels, LLC, et al., State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia,
Case No. 2009EV006754F (lead trial counsel in
successful prosecution of creditors' rights lawsuit on behalf of national
hospitality lender arising from complex commercial construction project;
obtained summary judgment in favor of lender and against borrower and guarantor
for more than $12 million).
- Liles v. Ginn-LA
West End, Ltd., 631 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s dismissal on improper venue grounds based upon exclusive venue provision clause contained in international
real estate contract).
- Passarella v. The Ginn Co., 637 F.Supp.2d 352, 2009 WL 1953030 (D.S.C. 2009) (denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand and holding that removal was proper under Class Action Fairness Act, notwithstanding “non-removal” provision of Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act).
- Godoy ex rel. Gramling v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 768 N.W.2d 674 (Wis. 2009) (affirming dismissal by trial court of plaintiff’s design defect claim relating to sale of white lead carbonate pigment).
- Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 872 N.E.2d 53 (Ill. App. 2007) (affirming trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for certification of nationwide class on ground that plaintiff failed to satisfy predominance requirement under Illinois class action statute).
- Smith v. Heartland Alliance of America Ass’n, 2005 WL 3533133 (E.D. Ark. 2005) (arguing that federal jurisdiction was proper over putative nationwide class pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) based on plaintiffs’ post-CAFA amendment to pre-CAFA complaint).
- Martin v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 198 (W.D. Tex. 2004) (defeating attempt to certify statewide product liability class action on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements necessary to maintain a class action).
- Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 607 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (defeating attempt to certify multi-state class of pressure treated wood owners based on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy predominance, typicality and manageability requirements).
Honors and Affiliations
- Atlanta Bar Association (Litigation Section)
- State Bar of Georgia (Product Liability and Tort & Insurance Sections)
- Defense Research Institute (Member, Product Liability Committee; Member, Steering Committee, Mass Torts and Class Action aSpecial Litigation Group)
- Lawyers Club of Atlanta
Publications
“New Life for an Old Statute,” Fulton County Daily Report, February 2,
2009
“A Sigh of Relief for Corporate Defendants: Rhode Island Supreme
Court Unanimously Rejects the Application of Public Nuisance in the Products
Liability Context,” The Voice, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2009
“Conflicts of Interest Between an Insurer and Its
Insured: The Insured’s Right to Independent Counsel,” Insurance Coverage Law
Bulletin, Volume 7, Number 7, August 2008
“Understanding the Class Action Fairness Act,” The
John Liner Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, Fall 2006
“Protecting the Executive Officer from Harassing
Depositions,” For the Defense, Vol. 46, No. 2, February 2004
Speaking Engagements
Articles