Robert W. Loewen, a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Orange County office, joined the firm in 1977. He is a member of the firm's Litigation Department.
Mr. Loewen focuses on general business litigation, with subspecialties that include toxic tort and cost recovery litigation. Following are examples of litigation that he has handled:
From 2005 to present, lead trial counsel for defendant engineering and testing company in toxic tort lawsuits brought by over 100 plaintiffs and a putative class of property owners in which defendant is accused of contaminating the groundwater with TCE and other chemicals from a site located in Norco, California. Exposure is alleged to have occurred due to vapor intrusion into plaintiffs’ homes from the groundwater.
From 1998 to present, represents rocket motor manufacturing company in state court toxic tort litigation brought by over 800 individual plaintiffs and two putative classes alleging personal injuries and medical monitoring damages for alleged groundwater contamination with TCE and ammonium perchlorate. Brought seven successful writs of mandate in the Court of Appeal reversing the trial court on key issues such as punitive damages, burden of proof and statute of limitations. Out of 50 test plaintiffs selected by plaintiffs’ counsel, the claims of all but 10 have been dismissed, and punitive damages claims have been dismissed as to those ten remaining plaintiffs. Trial anticipated in 2008.
Beginning in 2007, represents uranium mine operator in cost recovery dispute against the United States. The former uranium mine is located in the Grand Canyon. The matter is expected to proceed to mediation in 2008.
2006 to Present, lead counsel in action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to protect the rights of a church to practice its religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and the United States and California Constitutions.
2006 obtained a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit affecting the scope of the government contractor defense in toxic tort cases. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006).
2005 to Present, lead counsel for a testing company in complex contract litigation to enforce an indemnity provision to cover defense costs and indemnity in toxic tort litigation. Obtained summary judgment in favor of his client and an award of over $2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. The case is pending in the Ninth Circuit, where it has been fully briefed.
From 2004 to present, lead trial counsel representing defendant aerospace manufacturing company in cost recovery litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Plaintiff is a water purveyor seeking to recover under CERCLA, MTCA, and state tort theories for the cost of clean-up and replacement of contaminated drinking water. All state tort claims and plaintiffs’ CERCLA 107(a) cost recovery claims have been dismissed on Motions for Summary Judgment.
From 2006 to present, lead trial counsel representing ship building company in action against the United States in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to recover costs of cleaning up contaminated sediments in a harbor in the State of Washington.
In 2002, completed work as lead trial counsel for aerospace company in federal toxic tort case brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by over 80 plaintiffs and three putative class actions alleging claims for personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, CERCLA response costs, medical monitoring and punitive damages in connection with alleged air and groundwater contamination with TCE, PCE and Cr6; lead attorney on motions 1) successfully opposing class certification and 2) obtaining summary judgment on theories of statute of limitations, no ultra hazardous activity, no diminished property value (so-called "stigma damages"), and no medical monitoring. At time of trial, only nine plaintiffs and no classes remained with active claims. Case settled five days after jury trial began for an amount below plaintiffs' costs, and post-trial interviews revealed that most jurors were prepared to vote for defense even though plaintiffs had not yet rested.
In 2001, completed work for aerospace company in California state-court toxic tort litigation brought by over 3,100 plaintiffs asserting claims similar to those described above. Lead attorney on successful motions against 194 test plaintiffs defeating all claims on grounds of no causation, no medical monitoring, no fraud, no fear of cancer, no failure to warn, no battery, no infliction of emotional distress, and no ultra hazardous activity. Lead attorney in successful six-day Daubert-like hearing with live witnesses to exclude plaintiffs' Fate and Transport expert; lead attorney in a separate hearing on successful motions to exclude testimony of plaintiffs' causation experts. As a result of complete defeat of claims of 194 test plaintiffs without trial, the case was settled in an amount viewed as favorable by the client.
In 2004 completed work for electronics and paint coating companies that were among approximately 100 industrial defendants in toxic tort litigation known as In re Groundwater Cases in California state court. Plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered illness and property damage due to alleged exposure to TCE and other chemicals in the groundwater. Participated actively in joint defense group. Case settled for both clients for a combined payment in five figures.
In 1993, completed work for petroleum company in toxic tort case brought by hundreds of plaintiffs alleging illness as a result of releases of radioactive materials from nuclear weapons facility. Was primarily responsible for successful opposition to class certification.
In 1990, completed work for oil pipeline company in toxic tort case brought by thousands of persons and multiple classes allegedly affected by oil tanker spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Primarily responsible for successful opposition to class certification and taking discovery against putative class representatives and defended company representatives in public hearings by Congressional committee and participated on select team to prepare new oil spill response contingency plan.
In 1985, completed work as trial and appellate counsel for manufacturer of prescription medication in Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 209 Cal. Rptr. 456 (1985), often cited in toxic tort cases as the watershed case in California on the standards for proving medical causation.
In 1979 to 1998, represented developers and other corporate interests in multiple unrelated cases arising under the California Environmental Quality Act in which task was to either challenge or defend proposed developments.
In 1997 to 2005, filed friend-of-the-court briefs in appellate cases affecting toxic tort defendants, including: Lockheed Litigation Cases, Case No. S132167 (currently pending) (proposing a standard for admissibility of expert testimony in California); Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16 (1997) (successfully seeking modification of opinion on medical causation); Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co., 219 F. 3d 988 (9th Cir. 2000), withdrawn 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20839 (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 19, 2001) on rehearing 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20971 (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 26, 2001) (successfully seeking rehearing and withdrawal of unfavorable decision on medical causation); McKelvey v. Boeing N. America, Inc., 74 Cal. App. 4th 151 (1999) (successfully seeking publication of favorable statute of limitations decision); and McGill v. M.D. Brock & Sons, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 4th 1396 (1999) (successfully seeking depublication of unfavorable statute of limitations decision).
Mr. Loewen received his bachelor of arts degree from Pomona College in 1970. He graduated first in his class with a law degree from the University of Southern California School of Law in 1975, where he served as Executive Editor of Lead Articles for the Southern California Law Review and was a member of the Order of the Coif. Prior to joining Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Mr. Loewen served as a law clerk to Justice Byron R. White at the United States Supreme Court and for Judge Walter Ely at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
A member of the American and California Bar Associations, Mr. Loewen has been admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts of California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and all California State Courts.
