Jay DeSanto

Counsel

Overview

Jay DeSanto is a counsel in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and is a member of the firm's Litigation Group. Jay litigates complex commercial disputes across a broad spectrum of industries, with a focus on representing health care companies and higher education institutions. Jay has experience litigating high-stakes cases before federal and state courts and before commercial arbitration panels. He regularly participates in all phases of litigation, including drafting briefs and dispositive motions, engaging in discovery, drafting pleadings, taking and defending depositions, and assisting in trial preparation.

In addition to his litigation practice, Jay has experience advising retail and university clients on First Amendment, defamation, and false advertising issues.

Jay’s pro bono practice focuses on voting rights litigation.

Before joining Crowell & Moring, Jay was a litigator at a Pennsylvania-based law firm, where he practiced commercial litigation and eminent domain law.

During law school, Jay was a staff editor for the Federal Circuit Bar Journal and served as a judicial intern to both a federal judge in Washington, D.C., and a federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania. Jay also served as a law clerk to both the National Association of College and University Attorneys and The George Washington University's Office of the General Counsel.

Career & Education

|
    • College of the Holy Cross, B.A., magna cum laude, political science, 2009
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2012
    • College of the Holy Cross, B.A., magna cum laude, political science, 2009
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2012
    • District of Columbia
    • Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • District of Columbia
    • Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Jay's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.20.23

Conspiracy Contacts: The Supreme Court’s Next Frontier in Personal Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court has shown great interest in personal jurisdiction issues of late. Last term, in Mallory, the Court upheld a state corporate registration law that requires companies to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition to conducting business in the state.[1] In 2021, in Ford, the Court held that it is not a violation of due process for a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though the defendant’s contacts with the state are not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.[2]...

Representative Matters

  • Defending health insurance companies in MDL litigation asserting antitrust claims.
  • Representing voters in Voting Rights Act challenge to state’s method for electing appellate court judges. 
  • Representing retail merchants in antitrust litigation against major credit card company.
  • Defending prominent health care provider in equipment lease dispute.

Jay's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.20.23

Conspiracy Contacts: The Supreme Court’s Next Frontier in Personal Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court has shown great interest in personal jurisdiction issues of late. Last term, in Mallory, the Court upheld a state corporate registration law that requires companies to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition to conducting business in the state.[1] In 2021, in Ford, the Court held that it is not a violation of due process for a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though the defendant’s contacts with the state are not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.[2]...

Jay's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.20.23

Conspiracy Contacts: The Supreme Court’s Next Frontier in Personal Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court has shown great interest in personal jurisdiction issues of late. Last term, in Mallory, the Court upheld a state corporate registration law that requires companies to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition to conducting business in the state.[1] In 2021, in Ford, the Court held that it is not a violation of due process for a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though the defendant’s contacts with the state are not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.[2]...