Bijan Esfandiari is the lead law and motion attorney at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles and is a member of the firm’s pharmaceutical drug product liability litigation team. He has successfully represented clients in state and federal courts across the nation at both the trial and appellate level. 

Mr. Esfandiari has had the privilege of participating in cases that have shaped and developed the law for the benefit of injured victims and consumers of pharmaceutical products.  In one such case, the Court agreed with Mr. Esfandiari's arguments and, in an issue of first impression, held that under New Jersey law a drug manufacturer owes an affirmative duty to warn regarding risks associated with children's off-label use. Mr. Esfandiari's published cases have also exposed reprehensible corporate conduct. For example, a federal court in Pennsylvania noted that "internal documents suggest that Defendant acted with a wanton and willful disregard for the safety of its consumers", and thus allowed Mr. Esfandiari's clients to proceed with their punitive damages claims.

Mr. Esfandiari has also been at the forefront of the preemption battle and has successfully argued against preemption in numerous cases.  Most recently, Mr. Esfandiari successfully briefed and argued the first and only prescription drug preemption case to be heard by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit unanimously agreed with Mr. Esfandiari’s arguments and held that plaintiffs’ claims were not preempted by federal law. See Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., __F.3d. __, 2010 WL 605922 (7th Cir., Feb. 23, 2010).  Mr. Esfandiari has also successfully opposed preemption in numerous state and federal trial courts, including Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 1225 (S.D.Ind. 2008); Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008); Turek v. SmithKline Beecham, Case No. 3596 (Pa. Ct.Com.Pl. March 18, 2009); and Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis. 2009).  Mr. Esfandiari also co-authored an amicus brief in support of the respondent, Diana Levine, in the Supreme Court's landmark case Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009).

Born:

• Teheran, Iran, 1976

• University of California at Los Angeles (B.A., cum laude, 1999)
• University of California School of Law, Los Angeles, California (J.D., 2002)
• Member, UCLA School of Law Moot Court Honors Program
• Member, UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs
  
• Contributing Author to The Docket, a UCLA School of Law Publication
  

• California, 2002
• U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2002
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2002
• U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2006
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2006
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2008
• U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2008
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2008
• US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008
• US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2009

• State Bar of California
• The American Association for Justice (formerly ATLA), Products Liability Section, STEP-Toxic, Environmental and Pharmaceutical Torts Section
• Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles County Bar Association

• "Strategies for Litigating Copyright Cases When Infringement is Uncontested," San Fernando Valley Bar Association - Intellectual Property, Entertainment Law & Internet Law Section, February 17, 2006
• Oral Advocacy Competition Participant, ABA Forum on Communications Law - Media Advocacy Workshop, Key Largo, FL, February 8, 2007

• "Caught Without a License," Marketing Management - Marketing Law, November/December 2007
• "Grokster: Inducing Further Litigation," ABA Tort Trial & Practice Section, Intellectual Property Law Committee Newsletter, Fall 2005.
• "Camisoles: Providing Thin Protection," IP Law 360 , September 28, 2006
• "YouTube Sued: It's a Riot," American Bar Association, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) Media Privacy Committee Newsletter, Fall 2006
• "Complete Tort Immunity For Drug Manufacturers Is Bad For The Public Health: A Commentary On Colacicco v. Apotex And Other Recent Preemption Decisions", LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Litigation Report: Antidepressant Report, Volume 4, Issue #10 • May 2008
  http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/articles/tort_immunity_esfandiari_2008.php
• "Preemption's Requiem in the Wake of Wyeth v. Levine", LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 14, Issue #10  •  May, 2009
  http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/articles/preemption_requiem_esfandiari_2009.php
• "Outsmarting the'Learned-Intermediary Doctrine' Defense", The Advocate • February 2010, pg 62

• Listed, Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
• Selected to: Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star, 2009
  

• Member, Representative Assembly of the Palms Neighborhood Council
• Public Counsel Volunteer Attorney, 2007

• Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802
• Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 1225 (S.D.Ind. 2008) (granting plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and holding that plaintiff's claims are not preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act)
• Knipe v.SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008) (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and holding that plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act)
• Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 602 (E.D.Pa. 2008) (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment; holding that a drug manufacturer owes a duty to warn regarding risks associated with off-label uses; and allowing plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages to proceed to the jury)
  
• Cunningham v. SmithKline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474 (N.D.Ind. 2009) (ordering defendant to produce documents and awarding sanctions)
• Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 602 F.Supp.2d 960 (E.D.Wis. 2009) (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment; confirming that Wisconsin has not adopted the learned intermediary doctrine; and allowing all of plaintiffs' claims, including, negligence, fraud and punitive damages to proceed to the jury)
• Forst v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis.,2009) (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and holding that plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act)
• Mason v. SmithKline Beecham  Corp., __F.3d __, 2010 WL 605922 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010) (reversing district court’s preemption ruling and holding that plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law)

• Class Actions
• Complex and Multi-District Litigation
• Consumer Litigation
• Personal Injury
• Pharmaceutical Drug Liability
• Product Liability Law
• Wrongful Death Law

• Farsi
• German (conversational)