Michael P. Daly

Class Actions

Class actions threaten astronomical damages and asymmetrical discovery. And they are subject to rules — jurisdictional, procedural and even ethical — that differ from those for other cases. Mike counsels clients on best practices for avoiding civil liability and regulatory scrutiny, and comments on class actions for national media outlets and CLE providers. He also co-chairs subcommittees of the ABA’s Consumer Litigation Committee and Class Actions and Derivative Suits Committee, co-authored chapters in the Telecommunications Law Answer Book and The Class Action Fairness Act: Law and Strategy, and serves as the senior editor of the firm’s TCPA Blog — one of the first and foremost public resources on TCPA litigation and regulation.

Advocacy and Appeals

Mike writes with a singular clarity of language and purpose. His goal for every engagement is to tailor the argument to the audience and to explain — as simply and succinctly as possible — why his client is right as a matter of not only fact and law but also policy and equity. He has drafted critical briefs at all stages of litigation and has taught a firmwide class on persuasive writing for more than a decade. Clients described him to Chambers USA as a “strong writer” whose “work product is excellent.”

Consumer Contracts

In this era of “gotcha” class actions, plaintiffs will target any arguable violation of any arcane statute — no matter how innocent or inconsequential — and extract settlements by seeking aggregate damages in the millions if not billions of dollars. Yet many businesses rely on contracts that were cobbled together with little regard to readability, much less enforceability. Mike counsels clients on mitigating risk by refining arbitration agreements, improving contract-formation processes, and complying with state automatic renewal laws, among other things.

Client Focus

Mike is known for his unflagging focus on his clients. He makes it his business to know their business, to recognize their risks before they do, and to find practical solutions to intractable problems. He manages matters with an eye on both the finish line and bottom line so that clients can focus on what matters most — running their businesses and serving their customers. Clients reported to Chambers USA that he is a “go-to resource” who is “incredibly responsive.”

Public Service

Mike has a passion for protecting civil rights and promoting civil justice. One of his matters challenged voting machines that did not produce voter-verified physical records, which were subsequently required for all machines. Another ended decades of discrimination by agencies that had refused to use alternative formats for the visually impaired. Another convinced a state supreme court that a consumer protection statute can only be invoked by plaintiffs who have suffered concrete harm. And another obtained the certification of a class of detainees being exposed to an unjustifiable risk of contracting COVID-19. He is a co-president of his civic association, and a Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation — an honorary organization of attorneys who have “demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession.”

Training and Mentoring

Mike is dedicated to fostering an inclusive, supportive environment in which young lawyers can pursue their interests and perfect their skills. He makes a point of empowering associates and encouraging them to practice with not just tenacity but also dignity, integrity and civility. He serves as a master in his alma mater’s Inn of Court, served as a charter member of the firm’s Wellness Committee, and has taught part of the firm’s training program — which garnered national headlines when it was created — for more than a decade.

Background

Mike graduated cum laude with honors from Bucknell University, where he was a member of its wrestling team, and graduated magna cum laude and Order of the Coif from Villanova University School of Law, where he was an editor of its law review. He served as an extern for the Hon. Dolores Sloviter of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and as a clerk for the Hon. James McGirr Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Personal Interests

Mike enjoys short stories and long movies. His pastimes include walking with his dogs and rooting for his kids, and his recent exploits include feeding bears and training hawks. He is also one of the worst members of one of the first leagues in the annals of fantasy football.

Representative Class Actions Experience

• Ross, No. 22-0830 (M.D. Tenn. March 31, 2024) (compelling arbitration of consumer protection claims against automobile manufacturer)
• Simpson, No. 22-0747 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2023) (compelling arbitration of consumer protection claims against automobile manufacturer)
• Domer, No. 22-0444 (W.D. Wisc. July 26, 2023) (compelling arbitration of consumer protection claims against nationwide retailer)
• Turnier, No. 20-0288 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2021) (dismissing without prejudice automatic renewal claims against nationwide retailer)
• Saunders, No. 20-15207 (D.N.J.) (July 31, 2021) (compelling arbitration of data breach claims against technology and talent solutions provider)
• Aganan, No. 20-5922 (D.N.J.) (Nov. 23, 2020) (certifying class of immigrants challenging federal detention center conditions that create an unacceptable risk of contracting COVID-19)
• Duke, No. A-0795-15T3 (N.J. App. Div.) (July 27, 2018) (affirming dismissal of claims under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act based on a statutory interpretation argument that was raised for the time in an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute)
• Zacher, No. 17-7256 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2018) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Santangelo, No. 15-0293 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2017) (striking class action allegations against cable services provider)
• Noonan, No. 16-0458 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2017) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Wingard, No. 16-1539 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2017) (dismissing TCPA claims against cable services provider without prejudice due to failure to allege facts regarding capacities of alleged autodialer)
• Silfee, No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement)
• Adkins, No. 16-5969 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (dismissing without prejudice consumer protection claims against cable services provider)
• Landers, No. 16-1010 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 4, 2017) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Nop, No. 15-1691 (D.N.J. Sep. 14, 2016) (denying motion to remand action against affiliate of water and wastewater services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Green, No. L-4158-10 (Camden Cty., N.J. Aug. 5, 2016) (denying certification of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims against apartment management company)
• Noonan, No. 16-0458 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2016) (denying motion to remand action against cable services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Williams, No. 15-1469 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2016) (staying claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act pending decisions in appeal from FCC decision)
• Johnson, No. 14-0453 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2016) (approving settlement of claims against telecommunications provider)
• Vasquez, No. 13-5449 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (approving settlement of claims against janitorial services provider)
• Rafferty, No. 13-1410, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015) (approving fee award in public interest matter challenging the failure to provide accessible information to visually impaired residents of New York City)
• Rafferty, No. 13-1410, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2015) (approving class action settlement in public interest matter challenging the failure to provide accessible information to blind and visually impaired residents of New York City)
• Santangelo, No. 15-0293 (N.D. Ill. May 28, 2015) (dismissing without prejudice FCRA claim and related state law claims against cable services provider)
• Jones, No. 14-7375, slip op. (E.D. Pa. April 16, 2015) (issuing primary jurisdiction stay of claims against cable services provider)
• Grear, No. 14-5333 (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2015) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Smerling, No. 14-3452 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2015) (denying motion to remand action against cable services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Smerling, No. 14-3452 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2015) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Porter, No. 14-90015-QQ, slip op. (11th Cir. Sep. 19, 2014) (granting petition for permission to appeal order remanding putative class action to state court)
• Porter, No. 13-23745 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2014) (staying discovery pending decision on motion to compel arbitration of claims against prepaid wireless carrier)
• DiGiulio, No. 13-6349 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2014) (voluntary dismissal of consumer fraud claims against automobile manufacturer)
• American Chiropractic Ass’n, No. 12-7243 (E.D. Pa. March 27, 2014) (dismissing ERISA claims against health and wellness company due to named plaintiffs’ lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies)
• Diacakis, No. 13-80122, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2013) (denying Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal order denying certification in action against cable services provider)
• Rafferty, No. 13-1410, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2013) (certifying class in public interest matter challenging the failure to provide accessible information to visually impaired residents of New York City)
• Porter, No. 3D12-3077, slip op. (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 2013) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement in action against prepaid wireless carrier)
• Diacakis, No. 11-3002, slip op. (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) (denying motion for class certification in action against cable services provider)
• Bayer, No. 12-8618, slip op. (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2013) (granting motion to compel individual arbitration in action against cable services provider)
• Ostrom, No. 12-8226, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Crozier, No. 12-0008, 12-0010, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140320 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2012) (dismissing consumer fraud claims against pharmaceutical manufacturer)
• Tucker, 208 Cal. App. 4th 201 (Aug. 7, 2012) (Bruiniers, J.) (affirming denial of certification of damages claims against wireless carrier)
• Oughton, No. 11-1926, slip op. (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2012) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Pang, No. L-3309-10, slip op. (N.J. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 2012) (denying certification of consumer fraud claims against pharmaceutical manufacturer)
• Diacakis, No. 11-3002, 2012 WL 43649 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (dismissing without prejudice claims against cable services provider)
• Knapp, 195 Cal. App. 4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Fybel, J.) (affirming denial of certification of claims against wireless carrier)
• Cuadras, No. 09-7897, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (compelling arbitration of claims against prepaid wireless carrier)
• Afroilan, No. 469, August Term 2002, slip op. (Phila. C.C.P. Nov. 2, 2010) (approving settlement of claims against wireless carrier)
• Hall, No. 07-5325, 2010 WL 4053547 (D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2010) (approving settlement of claims against wireless carrier)
• Tucker, No. 03CC14707, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. May 24, 2010) (denying certification of claims against wireless carrier)
• Williams, No. 09-22890, 2010 WL 1645099 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2010) (finding after bench trial that plaintiff had entered into arbitration agreement with prepaid wireless carrier)
• In re Peer-to-Peer Transmission Contract Litig., MDL No. 1992, slip op. (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2009) (approving settlement of claims against cable services provider)
• In re Peer-to-Peer Transmission Contract Litig., MDL No. 1992, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (centralizing multidistrict claims against cable services provider)
• Hart, No. 07-6350, slip op. (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2008) (issuing primary jurisdiction stay of claims against cable services provider)
• Sidner, No. 2008 CA 001180 B, slip op. (D.C. Super. Ct. Sep. 22, 2008) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Farina, No. 06-0724, 2008 WL 436921 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2008) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Schwartz, 256 Fed. Appx. 515 (3d Cir. 2007) (Fisher, J.) (reversing decision that plaintiff had not entered into arbitration agreement with cable services provider)
• Waldman, No. 07-80081, 2007 WL 1970858 (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2007) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Davidson, No. 06-0133, 2007 WL 896349 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 23, 2007) (compelling arbitration of claims against wireless carrier)
• Milligan, No. 06-0809, 2007 WL 4885492 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2007) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
• Davidson, No. 06-0133, 2006 WL 2927467 (E.D. Ark., Oct 12, 2006) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Schwartz, No. 05-2340, 2006 WL 487915 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006) (denying motion to remand action against cable services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
• Franczyk, No. 03-CH-14203, slip op. (Ill. Ch. Ct. June 13, 2005) (compelling arbitration of claims against wireless carrier)
• In re Wireless Tele. Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litig., No. 4:03-MDL-1559-FJG, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26070 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 22, 2003) (issuing All Writs Act injunction of claims against wireless carriers)
• In re Wireless Tele. Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (centralizing multidistrict claims against wireless carriers)

Representative Advocacy and Appeals Experience

• Barr, No. 19-0631 (U.S.) (Apr. 1, 2020) (amicus briefing regarding the constitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s restrictions on the use of automated telephone equipment)
• mPower, No. 2598 EDA 2018 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019) (reversing multimillion dollar award of attorneys’ fees as contrary to plain language of master services agreement)
• Brooks, No. 631 (Md. Ct. Spec. Appeals) (June 17, 2019) (affirming order striking counterclaim and finding appeal moot)
• Duke, No. A-0795-15T3 (N.J. App. Div.) (July 27, 2018) (affirming dismissal of claims under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act based on a statutory interpretation argument that was raised for the time in an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute)
• Spade, No. 078611 (N.J. Sup. Ct.) (Apr. 16, 2018) (confirming that plaintiffs that do not have an actual injury do not have statutory standing to seek civil penalties under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act)
• Spade, No. 078611 (N.J. Sup. Ct.) (June 19, 2017) (amicus briefing regarding the scope of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act)
• Silfee, No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement)
• Duke, No. A-000795-15-T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 30, 2017) (amicus briefing regarding the scope of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act)
• In re Petition for Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling of Craig Moskowitz and Craig Cunningham, CG Docket No. 05-338 (March 10, 2017) (amicus briefing regarding interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act)
• Murray, No. 14-1350 (D.C. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016) (abandoning Frye standard and adopting Rule 702 standard for admissibility of expert opinion testimony)
• Porter, No. 14-90015-QQ, slip op. (11th Cir. Sep. 19, 2014) (granting petition for permission to appeal order remanding putative class action to state court)
• In re Petition of Solvable Frustrations, Inc., No. RM-11675 (Apr. 11, 2014) (denying petition requesting that FCC rules be amended to permit FCC to adjudicate class actions)
• Diacakis, No. 13-80122, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2013) (denying Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal order denying certification in action against cable services provider)
• Porter, No. 3D12-3077, slip op. (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 2013) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement in action against prepaid wireless carrier)
• Tucker, 208 Cal. App. 4th 201 (Aug. 7, 2012) (Bruiniers, J.) (affirming denial of certification of damages claims against wireless carrier)
• Beard, 2012 WL 1021323 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2012) (Saylor, J.) (affirming entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in product liability action against medical device manufacturer)
• Knapp, 195 Cal. App. 4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Fybel, J.) (affirming denial of certification of claims against wireless carrier)
• Beard, 988 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (Per curiam) (reversing failure to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict in product liability action against medical device manufacturer)
• Schwartz, 256 Fed. Appx. 515 (3d Cir. 2007) (Fisher, J.) (reversing decision that plaintiff had not entered into arbitration agreement with cable services provider)
• Berg Chilling Systems, 435 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.) (affirming finding of no successor liability in international commercial dispute)
• Miller, No. 05-3553, slip op. (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2006) (Per curiam) (affirming dismissal of denial of medical benefits claim as moot)
• Urbach, 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2006) (Per curiam) (reversing failure to submit manufacturer’s statute of limitations defense to a jury)
• Digital Signal, 156 Fed. Appx. 485 (3d Cir. 2005) (McKee, J.) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement with wireless carrier)
• Berg Chilling Sys., 369 F.3d 745 (3d Cir. 2004) (Greenberg, J.) (reversing failure to enforce exclusion of liability in asset purchase agreement)
• Smalls, 843 A.2d 410, 414 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (Bowes, J.) (reversing failure to grant new trial due to excessive jury award against manufacturer)