Charles H. Samel

Chuck Samel is a partner in Stoel Rives’ Litigation group whose practice focuses on antitrust litigation, antitrust counseling, and complex commercial litigation. Chuck advises clients about whether their sales, pricing, marketing, and distribution practices, or those of their competitors, comply with the antitrust laws. He also provides antitrust compliance training programs for corporate employees.

Read More Read Less

Education

Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1985, cum laude

University of Maryland, B.A., 1982, magna cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa

Admissions

California

Antitrust Class Action and Antitrust Litigation Defense

• Defense of seafood processor in putative class action alleging claims for monopolization and price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, and California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition Law.
• Defense of lumber producers in action by construction companies alleging that ten largest lumber producers in the U.S. conspired to fix and artificially inflate the prices of lumber and wood products in violation of federal and state antitrust law. Motion to dismiss granted and affirmed by the Fifth Circuit (New England Construction Co. v. Weyerhaeuser).
• Defense of property management company in nationwide putative class action alleging that property managers agreed to follow recommendations of pricing algorithm to fix and artificially inflate rents for multi-family residential apartments (In re RealPage Rental Software MDL Antitrust Litigation).
• Defense of facilities management company in action in which competitor alleged conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids to steer the awards away from the plaintiff, and to the other defendants, in violation of the Sherman Act. Motion to dismiss granted and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit (Bona Fide Conglomerate v. SourceAmerica).*
• Defense of major talent agency against alleged claims for conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law arising from an alleged agreement among four talent agencies to exercise control over the market for scripted television series. Motion to dismiss granted and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit (Lennhoff Enterprises v. United Talent Agency).*
• Defense of major oil refiners in putative class action in which service station dealers alleged that refiners used exchange agreements to restrict supply and raise the price of gasoline in violation of federal antitrust law. Motion to dismiss granted and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit (Gilley Enterprises v. ARCO).*
• Defense of major retailer of musical instruments in putative class action of consumers alleging that retailer and vendors conspired to use minimum advertised pricing policies to restrict retail competition for musical instruments and equipment in violation of federal and state antitrust law. Motion to dismiss granted and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit (In re Musical Instruments and Equipment MDL Antitrust Litigation).*
• Defense of trucking company in putative national class action in which shippers alleged that less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers agreed to fix fuel surcharges in violation of federal antitrust law. Motion to dismiss granted and no appeal (In re LTL Shipping Services MDL Antitrust Litigation).*
• Defense of major oil refiner in class action in which consumers alleged that the refiners conspired to fix prices and restrict supply of gasoline in violation of state antitrust law. Motion for summary judgment granted and affirmed by the California Supreme Court (Aguilar v. ARCO).*
• Defense of trade association in action by independent pharmacies alleging hub-and-spoke antitrust conspiracy by drug manufacturers to fix prices and preclude the importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada. Motion for summary judgment granted and affirmed by California Court of Appeal (Clayworth v. Pfizer).*
• Defense of hospitals in putative class action in which nurses alleged that independent hospitals conspired to suppress their wages in violation of state antitrust law. Motion for summary judgment granted and affirmed on appeal (Zumbowicz v. Hospital Association of Southern California).*
• Defense of manufacturer of moist snuff smokeless tobacco in direct purchaser class action by wholesale distributors that alleged claims for monopolization based on category management practices. Noncash settlement prior to decision on motion for class certification (Keystone Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co.).*
• Defense of manufacturer of moist snuff smokeless tobacco in more than one dozen indirect purchaser class actions in which adult consumers alleged claims for monopolization based on category management practices in state courts in California, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Motion to dismiss Pennsylvania action granted and affirmed by the Third Circuit, and remaining actions settled settled (In re U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Antitrust Litigation).*

Complex Commercial Litigation

• Defense of manufacturer of semiconductors against claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit arising from formation of cybersecurity research institute. Bench trial resulted in take nothing judgment in favor of defendant.*
• Defense of manufacturer of semiconductors against claims for breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith arising out of allegation by educational publisher that defendant was required to continue to operate and maintain digital platform for K-12 school districts after termination of contract. Resolved by settlement.*
• Defense of consumer products company against claims for breach of contract arising out of allegation by major league baseball club that the parties entered into a binding sponsorship agreement. Resolved by settlement (Los Angeles Dodgers LLC v. Outerwall).*
• Defense of payment processing company against putative class action in which named plaintiffs alleged they were charged for wireless phone services that they never authorized in violation of the California Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed action with prejudice.*
• Representation of manufacturer of semiconductors in dispute arising out of claims against supplier of components used in data center architecture for breach of warranty, indemnity, and breach of contract. Resolved by settlement.*

* Prior Firm Experience

Insights & Presentations

• “Whether to Opt Out of Antitrust Class Actions: A Four-Step Checklist,” American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, May 26, 2015

Press Releases

• Ranked in BTI Client Service All-Stars: Antitrust & Commercial Litigation, 2015
• Included in The Best Lawyers in America^® (Commercial Litigation; Litigation—Antitrust), 2007–2023
• Recognized by Chambers USA as “one of the leading antitrust lawyers in California,” 2006–2011
• Listed by Los Angeles Magazine as “Southern California Super Lawyers” for Antitrust and Business Litigation, 2005, 2008–2018

Professional

• Los Angeles County Bar Association, Litigation Section, Executive Committee Member, 2018–2021
• ABA Section of Litigation, Antitrust Litigation Committee, Past Co-Chair
• Bet Tzedek Pro Bono Legal Services, Annual Dinner Committee Member, 1996–2012
• Georgetown Law School, Law Alumni Board Member, 2008–2014