Attorneys

Print Pdf
 
Shawn Thomas
SHAWN THOMAS

Shawn Thomas

Associate

Los Angeles (main)

t: 310.556.7894
f: 310.843.2694
sthomas@glaserweil.com

Shawn Thomas

Associate

Los Angeles (main)

Shawn Thomas is an associate in Glaser Weil's Litigation practice. He has extensive experience representing clients in every phase of complex commercial litigation from inception through trial. Mr. Thomas has represented clients from a broad array of industries in contract disputes, employment disputes, internal investigations, and a wide range of other commercial matters in state and federal courts, arbitration, and mediation.

Mr. Thomas is admitted to practice in New York and California.  

 
 
  • Practice Areas
  • Education
    • Brooklyn Law School, J.D.

    • University of California, Santa Barbara, B.A., Political Science

  • Federal and Patent Bar Admissions
    • US District Court, Southern District of New York

  • State Bar Admissions
    • California

    • New York

  • Representative Matters
    • Defended an orthopedic device manufacturer in an AAA arbitration brought by its parent company alleging fraud and fraud in the inducement in connection with the sale of the manufacturer several years prior.  The arbitral panel dismissed the claims after being convinced to entertain and subsequently granting a motion to dismiss.

    • Represented an online independent financial research company, as plaintiff, in asserting claims in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of a noncompetition agreement, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and breach of contract against a terminated co-founder and board member.  Settled on the eve of trial after obtaining summary judgment on defendant’s liability on the breach of contract claims.

    • Represented a Japanese steel importer asserting claims against a buyer who refused to pay millions of dollars it owed for hundreds of tons of galvanized steel.  After six days of AAA arbitration hearings, the importer was awarded several million dollars in damages and all of the buyer’s counterclaims were dismissed.

    • Represented a railcar manufacturer in a dispute with a prominent interstate commuter rail operator related to allocation of fault for project delays.  In the face of adverse case law precedent, via both informal negotiation and mediation, obtained a settlement in which the manufacturer was assessed no delay damages and was granted critical project schedule adjustments.

  • Practice Areas
  • Education
    • Brooklyn Law School, J.D.

    • University of California, Santa Barbara, B.A., Political Science

  • Federal and Patent Bar Admission
    • US District Court, Southern District of New York

  • State Bar Admissions
    • California

    • New York

  • Representative Matters
    • Defended an orthopedic device manufacturer in an AAA arbitration brought by its parent company alleging fraud and fraud in the inducement in connection with the sale of the manufacturer several years prior.  The arbitral panel dismissed the claims after being convinced to entertain and subsequently granting a motion to dismiss.

    • Represented an online independent financial research company, as plaintiff, in asserting claims in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of a noncompetition agreement, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and breach of contract against a terminated co-founder and board member.  Settled on the eve of trial after obtaining summary judgment on defendant’s liability on the breach of contract claims.

    • Represented a Japanese steel importer asserting claims against a buyer who refused to pay millions of dollars it owed for hundreds of tons of galvanized steel.  After six days of AAA arbitration hearings, the importer was awarded several million dollars in damages and all of the buyer’s counterclaims were dismissed.

    • Represented a railcar manufacturer in a dispute with a prominent interstate commuter rail operator related to allocation of fault for project delays.  In the face of adverse case law precedent, via both informal negotiation and mediation, obtained a settlement in which the manufacturer was assessed no delay damages and was granted critical project schedule adjustments.