John Crisham

Partner

john@crishamholman.com 720-739-2175 vCard

Biography

John Crisham has briefed, argued, and won complex civil litigation cases involving class actions, energy and environmental matters, commercial and business disputes, products liability and health care, and employment law.

John has represented clients at virtually every stage of litigation, from dispositive motions to appeals, in more than 15 different states, before 10 different federal Courts of Appeal, and in the United States Supreme Court. He served as counsel for the prevailing petitioners in Mutual Pharmaceutical Company v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) and Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), as counsel for amicus curiae the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014), and as counsel at the certiorari and brief-in-opposition stages on behalf of dozens of corporations and other businesses in several other matters.

John has particular experience defending public and privately-held clients facing bet-the-company class certification cases, and in strategizing and winning cases involving high-stakes and complicated legal issues.

Before founding Crisham & Holman, John was a litigation partner at Greenberg Traurig LLP in Denver, Colorado, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington, D.C., and before that he served as a law clerk for Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Representative Matters

General Business Litigation

Lead counsel for multi-national manufacturer in one-week jury trial in federal court.
Represented Fortune 50 company in defense of complex commercial and employment class actions in state and federal courts nationwide.
Represented Fortune 50 company, at state trial and appellate court levels, in litigation challenging the constitutionality of regional transportation authority’s sales-and-use tax regime.*
Secured dismissal for a Fortune 50 company of a Lanham Act false-advertising lawsuit.*
Secured dismissal for a Fortune 50 company of a putative class-action lawsuit asserting claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.*
Represented former owner of petroleum refinery in two-and-a-half week arbitration hearing concerning claims in excess of $100 million arising from alleged corrosion-related failure of buried pipe, and subsequent release of petroleum product, at refinery. Case settled on a confidential basis prior to final ruling.*
Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013): secured U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Hatch-Waxman Act preempts state-law tort claims targeting the design/composition of generic drug products.*
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011): secured U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Hatch-Waxman Act preempts state-law tort claims challenging generic product warnings.*
Susan B. Anthony List, et al. v. Driehaus, et al., No. 13-193 (S. Ct. 2014 Term): amicus counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in case involving the appropriate ripeness standard for free speech pre-enforcement challenges brought under the First Amendment.*
Grayden v. Spring Creek Energy Partners, __ Fed. App’x __, 2022 WL 17972139 (10th Cir. 2022): successfully briefed, argued, and secured unanimous reversal of district court's grant of summary judgment against client alleging fraudulent concealment in her sale of oil-and-gas royalty interests.
Renfro v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 1293 (10th Cir. 2022): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of putative class action alleging claims that client’s dog and cat food packaging was false and misleading on grounds that the challenged labeling was either not false or was inactionable puffery.*
‍Wagner v. Teva Pharms USA., Inc., 840 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 2016): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of state-law tort claims predicated on allegedly inadequate labeling and design on federal preemption grounds.*
Brinkley v. PLIVA, Inc., 772 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of state-law tort strict liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty claims on federal preemption grounds.*
In re Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of multi-district litigation plaintiffs’ state-law tort claims on federal preemption grounds.*
In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 751 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s dismissal of multi-district litigation plaintiffs’ state-law design-defect and other tort claims on grounds of federal preemption.*
Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2014): successfully defended district court’s holding that plaintiffs’ state-law negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation and fraud claims all are preempted by federal law.*
Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2014 WL 2884870 (Del. Sup. Ct. May 30, 2014): secured dismissal, as a matter of Delaware forum non conveniens law, of four complaints asserting Delaware personal-injury claims that over one hundred Norwegian workers allegedly incurred while working on oil rigs and platforms in the North Sea.*
Wells v. Allergan USA, Inc., et al., 2014 WL 117773 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2014): secured dismissal of various state-law tort claims asserted against Class III medical device manufacturer as preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act.*
Henderson v. Palmer, 730 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2013): on behalf of pro bono client, secured reversal of district court's denial of habeas corpus petition, allowing client to assert his claims on the merits in the district court.*
Washington v. Medicis Pharms. Corp., 2013 WL 496063 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 7, 2013): on behalf of manufacturer of generic drug product, secured dismissal of various state-law tort claims premised on "innovator liability" theory.*
Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2010): secured reversal of $926 million judgment in favor of plaintiff class in nuclear environmental contamination case on a variety of grounds, including erroneous interpretation of the federal Price-Anderson Act establishing claims for nuclear-related liability, erroneous approach to preemption of state law by federal nuclear safety standards, and erroneous interpretation of the Colorado common law of trespass and nuisance.*
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009): secured reversal and remand of client-specific rulings made by district court in $280 billion RICO/health care recovery action brought by the Department of Justice.*
Secured dismissal of dozens of state and federal cases at the motion-to-dismiss and summary-judgment stages on federal preemption grounds on behalf of Teva Pharmaceuticals, Baxter Healthcare, Ranbaxy Laboratories, and other prescription drug manufacturers.*
Counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals and related entities in nationwide products-liability litigation involving "unapproved" drugs.*
Counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals and related entities in complex multidistrict commercial litigation involving more than 20 cases brought by state Attorneys General alleging Medicaid/Medicare fraud and unfair competition based on purported inflation of published drug prices (AWP/WAC).*
Counsel for Baxter International and Teva Pharmaceuticals in major product-liability litigation involving anesthesia product.*

*The above representations were handled by Mr. Crisham prior to founding Crisham & Holman

‍

Experience

Greenberg Traurig LLP, Denver, Colorado, 2016-2021
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C., 2006-2015
Law Clerk, Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

‍

Education

University of Notre Dame Law School

J.D., 2002 - 2005
Cum Laude
Thomas J. White Scholar
Article Editor, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy

University of Notre Dame

B.A., Program of Liberal Studies, 1996 - 2000

Admissions

Colorado
District of Columbia
Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Articles & Speeches

• "Is Modern Standing Doctrine Just Calvinball?” Colorado Lawyer, January/February 2024

• "What To Expect After Colo. Nixes Special Standing Rules" Law360, November 16, 2023

Print Page

John Crisham