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 drug manufacturers owe 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.

He has also been at the forefront of the preemption battle and has successfully argued against preemption (drug manufacturer immunity) 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., 596 F.3d. 387 (7th Cir. 2010).  He has likewise 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); Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis. 2009); and Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc., 699 F.Supp.2d 1142 (C.D.Cal. 2010).  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
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2009
• U.S. Supreme Court, 2011

• State Bar of California
• Los Angeles County Bar Association
• The American Association for Justice; Products Liability Section, Qui Tam Litigation Group, STEP-Toxic, Environmental and Pharmaceutical Torts Section
• Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
• Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund

• "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
• Legal Implications of Pharmaceutical Ghostwriting
  Presented at University of Toronto, Faculty of  Law’s Conference on The Ethics of Ghost Authorship in Biomedical Research: Concerns and Remedies Workshop
  May 4, 2011

• "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
• "Preemption's Requiem in the Wake of Wyeth v. Levine"
  LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 14, Issue #10
  May 2009
• "Outsmarting the 'Learned-Intermediary Doctrine' Defense"
  The Advocate
  February 2010, pg 62
• "Levine To Mensing — A Journey From The Sublime To The Ridiculous"
  LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 16, Issue #16
  August 18, 2011
• "Reason Magazine Perpetuates False Information
  About Safety and Efficacy of Antidepressants"
  September 30, 2011
• "Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts"
  PLOS Medicine
  January 24, 2012

• Selected to: Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star, 2009 - 2011
• Avvo.com Superb Score 10.0 out of 10
• Listed, Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
  

• 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 federal law)
• Knipe v.SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008) (holding that plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by federal law)
• Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 602 (E.D.Pa. 2008) (holding that a drug manufacturer owes a duty to warn regarding risks associated with off-label uses and allowing plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and  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) (holding 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) (holding that plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by federal law)
• Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,  596 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2010) (unanimously reversing the trial court’s preemption ruling  and allowing plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to a trial on the merits)
• Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 701 F.Supp.2d 1040 (S.D.Ind.2010) (denying defendant’s learned intermediary defense and further allowing plaintiffs’ experts to testify regarding the causal association between antidepressants and increased suicidal behavior)
• Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc., 699 F.Supp.2d 1142 (C.D.Cal. 2010) (denying defendants’ preemption motion and holding that both name-brand and generic drug manufacturers have an affirmative duty to issue warnings)

• Class Actions
• Complex and Multi-District Litigation
• Consumer Fraud Litigation
• Personal Injury
• Pharmaceutical Drug Product Liability
• Product Liability Law
• Qui Tam Claims
• Whistleblower Protection
• Wrongful Death Law

• Farsi
• German (conversational)