Jeremy B Rosen

Practice Areas

High-stakes appellate litigation and appellate strategy across antitrust, environmental, class action, employment and wage-and-hour disputes, breach of contract, intellectual property, and complex commercial litigation; First Amendment and anti-SLAPP litigation, including religious liberty matters and appeals involving significant constitutional and statutory questions; advisory and strategic counseling at the trial level to preserve appellate issues in high-exposure litigation; pro bono appellate representation in domestic violence and civil rights matters.

Career

Jeremy Rosen is sought after by corporate clients across the country for strategic consultation in high stakes cases at all stages of litigation.

He has handled hundreds of appeals in state and federal appellate courts. His cases have involved numerous important issues regarding anti-trust, environmental law, class actions, wage and hour law, employment law, breach of contract, intellectual property, California’s Unfair Competition Law, CEQA, the enforceability of arbitration clauses, hospital peer review, the scope of public employee whistleblower protection, and the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. He is also nationally renowned for his proficiency in numerous issues arising under the First Amendment and California’s anti-SLAPP law. Using that knowledge, Jeremy has helped a wide variety of clients – including churches, private businesses, and individuals – defeat lawsuits that seek to impose liability on clients for exercising their rights of petition, free speech, and free exercise of religion.

Jeremy is a partner at the firm, which he joined in 2001. He is a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Jeremy directed the Pepperdine University School of Law Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic for 6 years. The Clinic represents individuals in the Ninth Circuit who are identified by the court as needing pro bono counsel. Jeremy also previously served a three-year term where he was appointed by the Ninth Circuit to serve as one of 18 appellate lawyer representatives to the court. He has an extensive pro bono practice where he often represents victims of domestic violence and individuals seeking redress for civil rights violations.

Jeremy served as a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center’s State Litigation Advisory Committee until 2026. Before joining the firm, Jeremy was a Litigation Associate with Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Professional Memberships

California Academy of Appellate Lawyers

Los Angeles County Bar Association

United States Chamber of Commerce

Bolch Institute at Duke Law School, Leadership Council

Cornell University Speech and Debate Advisory, Board Member

Federalist Society, Co-Chair of the Advisory Board, Former President of the Los Angeles Lawyer’s Division

Chancery Club of Los Angeles

Stephen Wise Temple, Executive Committee, Board Member and Secretary

Wise Readers to Leaders, Executive Committee, Board Member and Secretary

Publications

The Growing Divide Over Unmanageable PAGA Claims (June 29, 2022) Daily J.

John Eastman Is Not a Victim of Cancel Culture (October 2021) The Atlantic

Supreme Court Eviscerates Limits on the Ministerial Exception (Apr. 5, 2021) Daily J.

Escaping the COVID-19 Backlog: Arbitration (Fall 2020) ABTL Report

State Court Docket Watch: Frlekin v. Apple Inc., (Oct. 9, 2020) The Federalist Society

Anti-SLAPP and Employment Claims (July 15, 2020) Daily J.

A GC’S Auditor? How To Use Appellate Counsel To Add Value (Mar. 2018) Association of Corporate Counsel, Docket Vol. 36, Issue 2

How Calif.’s Anti-SLAPP Law Affects Amended Complaints (Nov. 8, 2017) Law360

Does California’s Anti-SLAPP Law Apply To Discrimination Claims? (June 9, 2017) Law360

My Reflections on Justice Paul Turner (May 26, 2017) Daily J.

SLAPP Update (Apr. 7, 2017) California Lawyer

DC Circuit Rules FedEx Drivers Are Independent Contractors, Again Rejecting NRLB View (Mar. 30, 2017) Washington Legal Foundation, The Legal Pulse

Does Anti-SLAPP Law Apply To Legal Malpractice Claims? (Feb. 13, 2017) Law360

Helping Americans to Speak Freely (Dec. 15, 2016) The Federalist Society Review, Vol. 18, p. 46

What Is ‘Public Interest’ Under California Anti-SLAPP Law? (Dec. 1, 2016) Law360

When Demand Letters Constitute Extortion In California (Sept. 23, 2016) Law360

Revitalizing Calif.’s Often Overlooked Legislative Privilege (Aug. 9, 2016) Law360

Speak Free Act Prevents SLAPP in Face to Free Speech (July 15, 2016) The Hill

Speaking Freely (Summer 2016) ABTL Report

California’s Anti-SLAPP Law is Not Systematically Abused (June 30, 2016) Law360

Written testimony in support of H.R. 2304, the ‘‘Speak Free Act’’ (June 22, 2016) House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary

Weekly Appellate Report (Apr. 29, 2016) Daily J.

The Fine Line Between Protected Demand Letters and Extortion (2015) California Litigation, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 11

Arbitration: Be Careful What You Wish For (Mar. 24, 2014) Corporate Counsel [online exclusive]

SLAAP Update (Dec. 2012) California Lawyer, pp. 36-38

Petitions for Review in the California Supreme Court (June 2012) Orange County Lawyer, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 32-36

Why We Need a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law (June 8, 2012) Daily J., p. 3

The Wide-Ranging Applications of Calif. Anti-SLAPP Law (Feb. 14, 2012) Law 360

Uncertainty looms over anti-SLAPP issues in 2011 (Dec. 20, 2011) Daily J., p. 4

Petitions for Review in the California Supreme Court (June, 2011) LACBA E-Publication, Vol. II, No. 21

The 2010 Election and the New Chief Justice: How Will the State Supreme Court Change? (Oct. 5, 2010) Daily J., p. 5

California 2010: The Courts and the Economy (Oct. 2010) Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies

California 17200: Its Nature, Function, and Limits (Summer 2010) State Court Docket Watch

Another Exception for Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards (June 15, 2010) Daily J., p. 7

California: Unfair Competition Law (Summer 2009) State Court Docket Watch, at p. 2

2 Cal. Civil Writ Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2008) Petition for Writ of Supercedeas, ch. 26, pp. 681-702

Where No Court Has Gone Before: The California Supreme Court Imposes Modest Limits On The Use Of Parol Evidence (1st Qtr. 2007) Verdict, pp. 42-44

Anti-SLAPP Statutes and Peer Review (Nov. 2006) Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, Vo. 24, No. 2A, p. 7

Unmasking “crack_smoking_jesus”: Do Internet Service Providers Have a Tarasoff Duty to Divulge the Identity of a Subscriber who is Making Death Threats? (2003) 25 Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent) 683

Excessive Verdicts Affect Both “Real People” and “the Powerful” (Sept. 2001) L.A. Daily J., Vol. 114, No. 168

The Independent Counsel Act: An Unconstitutional Delegation of Power to Judges (2001) Federalism & Separation of Powers News, Vol. 3, No. 1

China, Emerging Economics, and the World Trade Order (1997) 46 Duke L.J. 1519

Work Highlights

Doe v. Walmart (2026) – California Court of Appeal affirms judgment for Walmart in a sexual harassment and retaliation case involving alleged distribution of an employee’s explicit photographs.

Ogah v. USC (2025) – California Court of Appeal reverses injunction of campus disciplinary proceedings against a university student.

Fonseca v. Walmart (2025) – California superior court grants judgment notwithstanding the verdict, eliminating a $34 million damages award in an employment defamation case.

Shorter v. Baca (III) (2025) – Served as court-appointed amicus counsel; Horvitz & Levy files successful pro bono brief in support of a former pretrial detainee.

Navarro v. Cervera (2025) – California Court of Appeal publishes opinion holding that statutory procedural protections for ER surgeons in malpractice actions also extend to physicians who consult remotely with the ER department.

Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (2024) – California Court of Appeal holds that noncompetition provisions are binding on partial owners of a business unless unreasonable, reversing confirmation of a $40 million arbitration award.

Boermeester v. Carry (II) (2024) – California Court of Appeal holds that private universities disciplining students for sexual assault or intimate partner violence may use an investigatory model in which the same official serves as both investigator and factfinder.

G.G. v. G.S. (2024) – California Court of Appeal holds that the Domestic Violence Protection Act protects against all forms of abuse, including stalking, and courts may not distinguish between physical and nonphysical abuse when considering renewal of restraining orders.

Awards