• Mr. Weinstein mounted an ultimately unsuccessful challenge to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement forced on Verizon's millions of wireless telephone customers, on the grounds that the customers' waiver of their constitutional right to a federal court adjudication of their claims under Article III of the United States Constitution is involuntary, and that the express purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and its Congressional command that the federal courts adjudicate class actions properly brought under their diversity jurisdiction irreconcilably conflict with and override the Federal Arbitration Act. Adell v. Cellco P’shp d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 2019 WL 1040754 (N.D. Oh. Mar. 5, 2019), aff’d, 2022 WL 1487765 (6th Cir. May 11, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 355 (2022).
• Mr. Weinstein commenced an ultimately unsuccessful pro se action under the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution seeking the imposition of a constructive trust on the profits earned from the payments by foreign officials to President Trump's businesses, as well as an accounting of those profits by a special master and the required payment of those profits to the United States Treasury for the benefit of the People of the United States. William R. Weinstein v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, et al., 2017 WL 6544635 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017). Lawyer Sues to Put Teeth on Trump's Foreign-Cash Vow.
• Mr. Weinstein successfully precluded the application of a class action waiver under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act where the customer agreement provided that it was governed by Kansas law on behalf of a class of New York wireless telephone customers in connection with New York State Excise Tax charges. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Arbitration Reference No. 1425000444 (JAMS New York 2006). Initially, after the Arbitrator ruled that the class action waiver was unenforceable, Sprint unsuccessfully tried to terminate the arbitration in connection with a state court settlement, but the federal courts confirmed the Arbitrator’s authority to determine that the settlement was unenforceable because it did not satisfy the constitutional adequacy of representation requirement, and granted Mr. Weinstein’s petition requiring Sprint to return to the arbitration. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2008 WL 4865050 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2008), aff’d, 315 F. App'x 322 (2d Cir. 2009). Thereafter, Mr. Weinstein successfully obtained confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act of the Arbitrator's Final Award holding that the class action waiver was unenforceable and that Emilio could pursue his class claims in a court action. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2014 WL 902564 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2014), aff'd, 582 F. App’x 63 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1569 (2015). After confirmation, Mr. Weinstein continued to obtain favorable decisions in the case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 68 F. Supp. 3d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying Sprint’s motion to dismiss or to strike the complaint’s class allegations); Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2015 WL 5052551 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2015) (granting Emilio’s motion to amend the complaint); Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2016 WL 3748482 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016) (holding that Emilio has Article III standing to litigate his claims under the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), and denying Sprint’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.)
• Mr. Weinstein mounted an ultimately unsuccessful challenge to the constitutionality of the Federal Arbitration Act as a violation of separation of powers principles under Article III of the United States Constitution in connection with the hundreds of millions of involuntarily imposed wireless telephone arbitration agreements. Katz v. Cellco P’shp d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 2013 WL 6621022 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013), aff’d, 794 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 596 (2015).
• Mr. Weinstein successfully obtained a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that Verizon Wireless’ arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable under New Jersey law, but that decision was vacated by the Supreme Court when it issued AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), and on remand the Third Circuit ultimately upheld the enforceability of the arbitration agreement while holding that New Jersey law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Litman v. Cellco P’shp d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 381 F. App’x 140 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. granted, vacated & remanded, 131 S. Ct. 2872 (2011), cert. granted, vacated & remanded, 131 S. Ct. 2873 (2011), on remand, 655 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1046 (2012).
• Mr. Weinstein successfully appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff and consumers and rejected an FCC preemption defense asserted by Cingular in connection with a breach of contract claim for the alleged failure by Cingular to provide customers with the contractually promised service at the contractually promised rate. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 606 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2010).
• Mr. Weinstein successfully achieved approval of a settlement under the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires the City of New York to extend disabled parking accommodations to all severely mobility-disabled persons, regardless of New York City residency – thereby expanding a restricted policy that had been in place for more than 40 years. Florio v. City of New York, No. 06-cv-6473 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 22, 2010).
• Mr. Weinstein successfully appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and had decided in favor of consumers the issue of whether California state law precluding the enforceability of class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements is preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007).
• Mr. Weinstein commenced a case challenging gift card dormancy fees in February 2004, many months before the New York State Legislature substantially restricted the use of dormancy fees by gift card sellers, and the claims were thereafter sustained on appeal. Lonner v. Simon Property Group, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 100, 866 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2d Dept. 2008).
• Mr. Weinstein spearheaded the successful prosecution of a class action challenging the practice by one of the largest credit card issuers of crediting payments to lower APR cash advance balances before higher APR purchase balances – a practice finally addressed and restricted nationwide by federal legislation in 2009-10. Broder v. MBNA Corp., 281 A.D.2d 369, 722 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1st Dept. 2001)
• Mr. Weinstein oversaw the successful prosecution of claims in a consolidated AMEX arbitration on behalf of 97 claimants arising out of an options trading Ponzi scheme. In re Henry Hackel, 245 A.D.2d 124, 665 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1st Dep't 1997), appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 814, 681 N.Y.S.2d 474 (1998).
• Mr. Weinstein prosecuted several cases challenging the practices of mutual funds investing in illiquid securities in violation of their fundamental investment restrictions, including investments in mortgage-backed derivatives that were the forerunners of the complex derivative securities contributing substantially to the recent economic crisis. Rodney v. KPMG, 143 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1998); Krouner v. American Heritage Fund, 1996 WL 393584 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 1996).
• Mr. Weinstein, as co-lead trial counsel on a two lawyer team during a week-long bench trial, won an award and judgment in excess of $10 million on behalf of the class against multiple defendants, including a Merrill Lynch investment partnership and financier Thomas H. Lee, who were represented by three teams of lawyers. Winston v. Mezzanine Investments, L.P., 648 N.Y.S.2d 493 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 1996).
