Michael P. Daly

Partner Philadelphia
michael.daly dbr.com
Phone: (215) 988-2604 (215) 988-2604
Fax: (215) 988-2757

About

Michael P. Daly defends class actions and other complex litigation matters, handles appeals in state and federal courts across the country, and counsels clients on maximizing the defensibility of their marketing and enforceability of their contracts. A recognized authority on class action and consumer protection litigation, he often speaks, comments, and writes on recent decisions and developments in the class action arena. He is also a founder of the firm’s TCPA Team; the senior editor of the TCPA Blog, which provides important information and insight about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and a senior member of the firm's Class Actions Team and interdisciplinary Retail Industry Team.

Committed to civil rights and civic engagement, Michael has spearheaded public interest matters meant to prevent racial discrimination, protect the rights of the disabled and incarcerated, prohibit the use of unverifiable voting systems, and preclude the misuse of our laws and abuse of our civil justice system. One of his most recent public interest matters resulted in a landmark settlement that put an end to decades of discrimination by administrative agencies that had refused to make important information about public benefits programs available in alternative formats that were accessible to the blind and visually impaired. As a result of the settlement, thousands of class members have already requested and received documents in accessible alternative formats.

Experience

Michael regularly defends putative class actions involving issues such as advertising, labeling, privacy, telemarketing, billing, credit reporting, and debt collecting. He has extensive experience defending claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California False Advertising Law (FAL), California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and other state and federal consumer protection statutes. He routinely counsels clients on issues such as removing actions, compelling arbitration, enforcing class action waivers, coordinating multidistrict litigation, enjoining parallel proceedings, striking class allegations, opposing certification, negotiating settlements, designing notice and claims programs, and defending settlements from objections and attacks. Representative class action matters include:

  • 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. Chanc. 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)

Michael handles appellate matters in state and federal proceedings across the country, including representing various trade associations as amicus curiae in important appellate and administrative proceedings that affect their members’ interests. His work has resulted in rulings denying class certification, enforcing arbitration agreements, denying petitions to amend administrative rules to permit class actions, entering judgment notwithstanding a design defect verdict, absolving a manufacturer of successor liability, enforcing an exclusion of liability in an asset purchase agreement, and ordering new trials on damages and statute of limitations defenses, among others. Representative appellate matters include:

  • 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)

In this era of “gotcha” class actions, plaintiffs have taken to targeting any arguable violation of any arcane statute or regulation—no matter how innocent or inconsequential—in the hopes of extorting settlements by threatening theoretical aggregate exposures in the millions if not billions of dollars. Recognizing and mitigating the risks of contracting with and marketing to consumers has never been more important. Michael routinely counsels clients on best practices for maximizing the defensibility of their marketing and the enforceability of their consumer contracts and dispute-resolution programs. His consumer contracting and marketing clients have included pharmaceutical companies, wireless service providers, a cable services provider, a water and wastewater utility, a propane supplier, a home shopping television network, a trucking and transportation company, a bottled water and beverage supplier, an airport restaurateur and concessionaire, a parking and storage company, and numerous retailers. Representative services include:

  • Maximizing the enforceability of arbitration agreements and class action waivers;
  • Minimizing risk under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act;
  • Drafting terms of use and privacy policies for websites and mobile applications;
  • Drafting Do-Not-Call manuals and other telemarketing policies and procedures;
  • Reviewing fee disclosures, bill presentment, and cost recovery mechanisms;
  • Revising consumer contracts to maximize readability and enforceability;
  • Revising online and other electronic contract formation processes;
  • Reviewing advertisements for substantiation and litigation risk; and
  • Complying with state automatic renewal laws.

Recognitions

American Bar Foundation Fellow (2012-2017)

Awards Methodology (www.drinkerbiddle.com/content/awards)

Michael is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, an honorary organization of attorneys, judges and professors who "have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession."

Credentials

Bar Admissions

  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania

Education

  • Villanova University School of Law, J.D., 2000, magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Law Review
  • Bucknell University, B.A., 1997, cum laude, with honors

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Organizations

  • American Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • J. Willard O’Brien American Inn of Court