Archis A. Parasharami

Mr. Parasharami has significant experience handling all aspects of class actions and complex litigation, with a particular focus on developing and executing strategies to secure dismissals of class actions and denials of class certification, in addition to helping businesses achieve settlements on highly favorable terms.

Mr. Parasharami also is recognized nationally for his deep experience in drafting arbitration agreements, especially in the consumer and employment contexts, and defending the enforceability of those agreements. Most notably, Mr. Parasharami was part of the team that represented AT&T Mobility in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, in which the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law rules that would decline to enforce arbitration agreements solely because they waive class actions. Mr. Parasharami represented the company through all stages of the case while at his former firm, from federal district court to the Supreme Court, where he helped draft the winning briefs. While at his prior firm, he also represented the successful petitioners in several Supreme Court cases that focused on the enforceability of arbitration agreements, including:

• Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act prevents states from requiring class-wide arbitration when an arbitration clause does not expressly provide for that form of arbitration
• Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark, in which the Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state rule requiring a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements before an attorney-in-fact can bind her principal to an arbitration agreement
• Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, summarily reversing the West Virginia Supreme Court’s categorical refusal to enforce all pre-dispute arbitration agreements that apply to personal injury or wrongful death claims against nursing homes as preempted by federal law

In addition, Mr. Parasharami’s extensive appellate experience includes handling cases involving both class action and arbitration issues in the Supreme Court and in federal and state appellate courts. He successfully represented the petitioner in the landmark Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins case, in which the Supreme Court held that a lawsuit claiming a bare statutory violation does not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement for standing to sue in federal court without allegations of concrete harm.

Mr. Parasharami also represents companies facing threatened and filed mass arbitrations, executing both novel arbitration agreement drafting strategies and procedural and merits-based defenses to help minimize mass arbitration risks.