Zoë K. Wilhelm has a diverse litigation practice with a focus on class actions, accounting and valuation litigation, and general business disputes.
Zoë has significant experience in the defense of consumer class actions involving claims asserted under state consumer protection laws (e.g., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law), the California Gift Card Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and implied and express warranty law. Zoë is well-versed in class action issues ranging from the routine – e.g., removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and settlement approval – to the highly technical – e.g., one-way intervention, mandatory (no opt-out) classes, exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, and class certification. Zoë has defended class actions in jurisdictions throughout the country.
A substantial portion of Zoë’s practice is devoted to litigation involving accounting or valuation issues. She has a deep understanding of complex financial issues, including those related to allocations, the valuation of pass-through entities, and discount rates. She routinely harnesses complex facts to advocate on behalf of her clients.
Zoë also has experience representing companies in business disputes. She works with her clients to devise a strategy, whether it is working toward a favorable settlement or litigating in California state or federal court. She recently honed her trial skills at the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Trial Academy at Stanford Law School.
- Successfully defended telecommunications company in a class action asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
- Successfully defended car manufacturer in a class action asserting violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
- Obtained advantageous class-wide settlement of California Invasion of Privacy Act claims in one of two competing class actions and successfully defended settlement from proposed intervenors.
- Obtained summary judgment in favor of pharmaceutical company in an age discrimination case after successfully removing the case to federal court on the basis of fraudulent joinder.
- Defended insurance company in class action alleging the insurer improperly charged for workers compensation insurance for independent contractors.
- New Jersey
- University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D., 2009, Journal of Constitutional Law
- Yale University, B.A., 2004
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court, Central District of California
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
- U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania