Michael P. Daly

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

About

Michael P. Daly has spent nearly twenty years defending, counseling, and advocating for clients that interact with consumers. His practice focuses on defending class actions and other complex cases, handling critical motions and appeals in adversarial and administrative matters, and maximizing the defensibility of marketing and enforceability of consumer contracts. He is a vice-chair of the firm’s Class Actions practice; the senior editor of its TCPA Blog; a leader of its TCPA, Consumer Contracts, and Retail Industry teams; and a charter member of its Wellness Committee.

Mike is known for writing with a singular clarity of language and purpose. He believes that briefs should make confusing things clear, not make clear things confusing. 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 not only as a matter of law but also as a matter of policy and equity. He has drafted and consulted on critical briefs at all stages of civil litigation, and has taught a firmwide class on persuasive writing for more than a decade.

Mike also is known for championing civil rights and civil justice. His public interest work has protected the rights of the disabled and the incarcerated and prevented the misuse of our laws and our courts. For example, one recent matter ended decades of discrimination by agencies that had refused to make information about public benefits programs available in formats that could be accessed by the visually impaired. Another recent matter convinced a state supreme court—by making a statutory construction argument that no other party had made—that a consumer protection statute cannot be invoked by predatory professional plaintiffs who have suffered no harm.

But above all, Mike is known for his unflagging commitment to his clients. He makes it his business to know his clients’ business, to identify potential problems even before they do, and to find solutions that are both effective and cost-effective. He knows that clients need advice that is not only reliable but also actionable, and he is in his element partnering with his clients to find the most practical solutions to the most intractable problems.

Experience

Class actions pose exceptional challenges and threaten extraordinary damages. And they are subject to rules—jurisdictional, procedural, and even ethical—that are often very different from the ones that apply in other actions. In this arena more than most, experience truly is the best teacher.

An authority on aggregate litigation, Mike often speaks and writes about new developments in the law. He regularly defends class actions involving issues such as advertising, labeling, marketing, billing, credit reporting, and debt collecting. He has extensive experience defending claims under consumer protection statutes such as the federal TCPA, FCRA, and FDCPA; Pennsylvania’s UTPCPL; New Jersey’s CFA and TCCWNA; and California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA. He routinely counsels clients and colleagues on issues such as removing actions, compelling arbitration, coordinating multidistrict litigation, enjoining parallel proceedings, striking class allegations, opposing class certification, negotiating settlements, designing notice and claims programs, and defending settlements from objections and attacks.

Representative matters include:

  • 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. 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)

Mike handles critical motions and appeals in all manner of adversarial and administrative matters, including representing trade associations and public interest organizations as amicus curiae on behalf of their members. His work has resulted in rulings dismissing actions, denying class certification, enforcing arbitration agreements, denying petitions to permit administrative 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, ordering new trials on damages and statute of limitations defenses, and preventing uninjured plaintiffs from seeking civil penalties under a consumer protection statute, among others.

Representative matters include:

  • 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)

In this era of “gotcha” class actions, plaintiffs have taken to targeting any arguable violation of any arcane regulation—no matter how innocent or inconsequential—and extorting settlements by filing or threatening class actions with theoretical aggregate damages in the millions if not billions of dollars. Recognizing and reducing risk has never been more important. Yet many businesses continue to rely on consumer contracts that have been cobbled together over many years by many people, often with little regard to their readability, let alone their enforceability.

Mike counsels clients on maximizing the defensibility of their marketing and the enforceability of their contracts. His clients have included retailers, pharmaceutical companies, wireless service providers, a cable services provider, a water and wastewater utility, a propane supplier, a home shopping network, a trucking and transportation company, a bottled water and beverage supplier, an airport restaurateur, and a parking and storage company.

His work has included:

  • Maximizing the enforceability of arbitration agreements and class action waivers
  • Minimizing risk under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
  • Harmonizing related contracts to improve internal consistency and predictability
  • Opposing proposed legislation that would ban or burden arbitration agreements
  • Drafting Do-Not-Call manuals and other telemarketing policies and procedures
  • Drafting terms of use and privacy policies for websites and mobile applications
  • Reviewing fee disclosures, bill presentment, and cost recovery mechanisms
  • Revising consumer contracts to maximize readability and enforceability
  • Recommending best practices for late fees and early termination fees
  • Improving online and other electronic contract formation processes
  • Reviewing advertisements for substantiation and litigation risk
  • Complying with state automatic renewal laws and regulations

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