Jeremy M. Christiansen is a senior associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He is a member of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law, Administrative and Regulatory, Intellectual Property, and Litigation practice groups.
Mr. Christiansen represents clients from a wide variety of industries in high-stakes appellate, administrative law, and litigation matters, ranging from constitutional law and separation-of-powers litigation, to copyright infringement, commercial, and Administrative Procedure Act cases. His practice encompasses the full suite of appellate litigation, including: launching strategic litigation in trial courts; consulting with trial and agency counsel; embedding in trial teams to handle trial motions practice and ensure appellate preservation of issues; pre- and post-trial briefing, including dispositive motions; emergency stays and injunctions; rehearing and en banc rehearing petitions; merits briefing; and oral argument. Mr. Christiansen has represented parties before federal appellate courts across the country, including the First, Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States, and has presented oral argument before federal trial and appellate courts (including en banc argument). He was named by SuperLawyers as a Rising Star in Appellate Practice for 2020, 2021, and 2022, and by Best Lawyers as “One to Watch” in Appellate Practice from 2021-2023.
Mr. Christiansen sits on the pro bono committee for the Firm’s D.C. office and maintains an active pro bono docket. In 2019, Mr. Christiansen received the Firm’s Frank Wheat Award for his pro bono work.
Before joining the firm, Mr. Christiansen served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jay S. Bybee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to the Honorable Thomas R. Lee of the Utah Supreme Court.
Mr. Christiansen graduated summa cum laude and Order of the Coif from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, where he served on the Executive Board of the Utah Law Review.
Representative matters include:
- Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, 590 U.S. ___ (2020): Represented general obligation bondholders and insurers before United States Supreme Court in historic separation-of-powers case presenting questions of whether the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause, and whether, if so, the actions of an unconstitutional agency can be validated by the de facto officer doctrine.
- Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019): Obtained unanimous reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment which had erroneously awarded $12.8 million in expert witness fees, jury consulting fees, and other non-taxable litigation expenditures as part of the “full costs” available under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505. Named by Law360 as #2 of the Top Ten Copyright Rulings of 2019.
- Fitisemanu v. United States, 1 F.4th 862 (10th Cir. 2021) (pro bono): Represented plaintiffs on appeal defending first ever district court decision striking down 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1)—which purports to deny birthright citizenship to those born in American Samoa—as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
- Cedar Band of Paiutes v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Develop., No. 4:19-cv-30 (D. Utah 2019) (argued): Secured preliminary injunction in bet-the-business litigation on behalf of tribally owned corporations; holding that HUD-issued Mortgagee Letter purporting to limit provision of down-payment assistance for Federal Housing Authority-insured loans violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Agency fully the withdrew Mortgagee Letter.
- Match Group, Inc. v. Rad, No. 650287/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Commercial Div.) (2020): Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of $400 million breach-of-contract damages theory on behalf of a founder of the dating app, Tinder, with the court holding the “claw-back damages” theory “common to all” breach of contract claims alleged by the plaintiffs was precluded by the contract and also grounded “in a speculative and retrospective rewrite of the history of the parties’ relationship.”
- CFPB v. All American Check Cashing, No. 18-60302 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (argued): Representing target of enforcement action challenging constitutionality of the CFPB on the grounds that the agency’s structure violates Article II of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the Appropriations Clause, raising the issue of what remedies flow from those constitutional violations, and whether the government can “ratify” the filing and prosecution of an enforcement action that violated the Constitution.
- Healey v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 2084CV1519-BLS1 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Suffolk): Representing Uber in action brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General claiming Uber has misclassified drivers who access its platform as independent contractors.
- Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020): Obtained partial affirmance of summary judgment on swath of copyright infringement and business tort claims on the basis that the plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the relevant claims.
- Claiborne v. Blauser, 934 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2019) (argued) (pro bono): Secured unanimous reversal of district court order denying pro se prisoner inmate’s motion for a new trial, and established, for the first time in the Ninth Circuit and in a published opinion, that prisoner litigants have a constitutional right against visible shackling in civil cases and are entitled to an individualized hearing before they may be restrained at trial.
- BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Polyvore.com, 922 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2019): Secured affirmance of dismissal of secondary and vicarious copyright infringement liability claims brought against fashion-oriented social media company; remainder of case remanded and settled.
- Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 879 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2018): Overturned $14 million state-law computer hacking verdict entered against third-party software service company and CEO, and vacated computer hacking and copyright infringement permanent injunctions and $28 million attorneys’ fees award; remainder of case affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.