1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |April Nelson Ross

April Nelson Ross

Partner | She/Her/Hers

Overview

April Ross is a member of Crowell & Moring's Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation Group and a partner in the Washington, D.C. office. April frequently defends Fortune 500 companies against multi-jurisdictional consumer class actions, product liability actions, and mass tort actions. She has managed more than 50 class action matters, including defending a certified class action through trial, and has served as lead counsel in numerous MDL proceedings. April represents clients in a range of industries, with a particular focus on health care, consumer products, and transportation. In addition to trial-level work in state and federal courts across the country, April has substantial experience handling cases on appeal, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. Chambers USA 2022 ranked the firm’s Mass Tort group in its Highly Regarded ranking, and April has been selected by her peers in Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers as a “Top Rated Class Action & Mass Torts Attorney.”

Prior to attending law school, April worked as a molecular biologist for a biotechnology company, focusing on drug development research for neurobiological diseases. She has co-authored four papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

April is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the North Carolina State Bar and is admitted to practice before various federal courts, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Michigan.

Career & Education

|
    • University of California, Berkeley, B.A., molecular and cell biology, 2000
    • Duke University School of Law, J.D., Order of the Coif, with high honors, 2006 Faculty Award for Advocacy, 2006
    • University of California, Berkeley, B.A., molecular and cell biology, 2000
    • Duke University School of Law, J.D., Order of the Coif, with high honors, 2006 Faculty Award for Advocacy, 2006
    • District of Columbia
    • North Carolina (Inactive)
    • District of Columbia
    • North Carolina (Inactive)
  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Member, Law360 Transportation Editorial Board, 2021

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Member, Law360 Transportation Editorial Board, 2021

April's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.30.23

Supreme Court Rules That Due Process Allows States to Compel Businesses to Consent to “All-Purpose” Jurisdiction as the Price of Doing Business Within the State

Can a state court, consistent with the Due Process Clause, compel a foreign corporation seeking to do business in the state to consent to general (“all-purpose”) personal jurisdiction?  Until its decision this week in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,[1] the majority of courts forecast that the Supreme Court would answer that question with a resounding “no.”  Instead, five Justices in Mallory agreed that Pennsylvania’s business registration statute, which requires foreign corporations to consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction over “any cause of action” brought against them in state court, did not violate the Due Process Clause.[2] The decision is sure to encourage forum shopping and perhaps lead other states to adopt similar “consent-by-registration” statutes....

Representative Matters

Representative Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation Matters

April's mass tort, products, and consumer litigation experience includes defending clients in crisis management, consumer class actions, product liability class actions, and environmental exposure mass actions. She represents clients in a range of industries, including transportation, chemical, and consumer products. Recent matters include:

  • Defending major automobile manufacturer in multiple consolidated nationwide class actions alleging vehicle performance defects, breach of warranty, fraud, and consumer protection claims.
  • Obtaining dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a major automobile manufacturer in a putative class action alleging vehicle design defects.
  • Achieving and upholding on appeal the dismissal of numerous coal companies in class actions alleging global warming in federal district and appellate courts, and before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Defending a Class 1 railroad in several high-profile derailment class actions and mass actions, including achieving and upholding on appeal summary judgment in a putative class action litigation seeking medical monitoring following a derailment and chemical spill, and negotiating successful class settlements.
  • Representing a Class 1 railroad in a commercial dispute over allocation of liability under a trackage rights agreement.
  • Achieving dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of a U.S. component part manufacturer in MDL litigation arising from the crash of Air France Flight 447.
  • Serving as national coordinating counsel for a transportation client’s docket of diesel exhaust exposure litigation.
  • Representing a chemical manufacturer in MDL class action litigation alleging property damage from an herbicide product.

In addition to her litigation practice, April advises clients on a full range of product liability and risk management issues. With a focus on chemical and consumer products, she counsels clients on issues that include product design and stewardship, labeling, failure and causation analysis, product recall, and regulatory compliance. With extensive experience defending product liability class actions, April strives to help clients develop strategies to avoid or mitigate the risk of future product-related litigation.

Representative Health Care Litigation Matters

April has represented insurers, managed care organizations, and managed behavioral health care organizations in class actions and multidistrict litigation proceedings in both federal and state courts, as well as in arbitration proceedings. Her experience includes RICO and ERISA litigation, payor/provider reimbursement disputes, litigation brought under state and federal mental health parity statutes, antitrust litigation, and challenges to federal regulatory action under the Administrative Procedures Act. She has also briefed health care issues as amicus curiae before intermediate appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Recent matters include:

  • Representing a major behavioral health plan in nationwide putative ERISA class action litigation challenging denials of coverage for wilderness treatment.
  • Representing Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies in MDL national and statewide class actions asserting antitrust claims.
  • Representing through trial a major behavioral health plan in ERISA class action litigation challenging residential and outpatient utilization management guidelines.
  • Defeating class certification on behalf of a major behavioral health plan in an action alleging violation of California’s mental health parity, antidiscrimination, and unfair competition laws relating to the plan’s utilization review processes. Denial of class certification was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.
  • Achieving dismissal of all claims against Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies in MDL national and statewide class actions involving provider payment practices.
  • Successfully defending managed care companies against third-party subpoenas seeking proprietary data.
  • Briefing the scope of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s private cause of action before the Sixth Circuit as amicus curiae on behalf of a Medicare Advantage plan sponsor.

April's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.30.23

Supreme Court Rules That Due Process Allows States to Compel Businesses to Consent to “All-Purpose” Jurisdiction as the Price of Doing Business Within the State

Can a state court, consistent with the Due Process Clause, compel a foreign corporation seeking to do business in the state to consent to general (“all-purpose”) personal jurisdiction?  Until its decision this week in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,[1] the majority of courts forecast that the Supreme Court would answer that question with a resounding “no.”  Instead, five Justices in Mallory agreed that Pennsylvania’s business registration statute, which requires foreign corporations to consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction over “any cause of action” brought against them in state court, did not violate the Due Process Clause.[2] The decision is sure to encourage forum shopping and perhaps lead other states to adopt similar “consent-by-registration” statutes....

|

April's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.30.23

Supreme Court Rules That Due Process Allows States to Compel Businesses to Consent to “All-Purpose” Jurisdiction as the Price of Doing Business Within the State

Can a state court, consistent with the Due Process Clause, compel a foreign corporation seeking to do business in the state to consent to general (“all-purpose”) personal jurisdiction?  Until its decision this week in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,[1] the majority of courts forecast that the Supreme Court would answer that question with a resounding “no.”  Instead, five Justices in Mallory agreed that Pennsylvania’s business registration statute, which requires foreign corporations to consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction over “any cause of action” brought against them in state court, did not violate the Due Process Clause.[2] The decision is sure to encourage forum shopping and perhaps lead other states to adopt similar “consent-by-registration” statutes....