Lawdragon: Your source for legal news and lawyer information

Joel A. Mintzer
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-349-8500 (firm)
612-339-4181 (fax)
Contact this attorney

:: Profile

:: Library

:: Q&A

Practice Groups

Experience

Focuses on complex litigation, often involving multijurisdictional, class action, and bankruptcy issues.
Handles cases in employment, health care litigation, ERISA, and products liability litigation.

Outside Experience

Law Clerk to the Honorable Harold D. Vietor, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa

Selected Results*

In re: Lorazepam and Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation: Representation of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Federated Mutual Insurance Company in litigation before the federal District Court in the District of Columbia involving claims of state antitrust law violations regarding competitors' access to raw materials for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. The jury's verdict found that Mylan Laboratories Inc./Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambrex Corporation, and Gyma Laboratories violated state antitrust laws and had restrained trade and acted willfully in excluding generic competitors' access. In post-trial motions, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs treble damages, for a total award to all plaintiffs of $76.8 million. The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings following the D.C. Circuit opinion of January 18, 2011.
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. After summary judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009. Published decision: Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).
In re Matter of Union Oil Company of Calif., FTC Docket No. 9305 (F.T.C.). Trial counsel for Unocal in action brought by FTC alleging violations of Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 and monopolization under Sherman Act § 2, claiming that Unocal monopolized the market for reformulated gasoline in California by failing to disclose its patents to the California Air Resources Board and participants in the rule-making process. The case was tried to Administrative Law Judge Michael Chappell, lasted four months, and involved the testimony of more than 40 witnesses. The case was settled shortly after trial when Chevron acquired Unocal, while awaiting Administrative Law Judge's final decision.
Representation of Blues plans and other health insurers in litigation against drug manufacturer for overpayments made for the prescription drug Paxil and Paxil CR. After lengthy discovery and numerous pretrial motions on claims which included allegations of antitrust violations arising from manufacturers' use of patents to keep generics out of the market, we obtained settlement for our clients in the fall of 2008.
Represented independent three-member Special Committee of the Fiesta Bowl Board of Directors that was headed by a former Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Special Committee was formed to investigate allegations that the Fiesta Bowl had reimbursed employees for campaign contributions, that a prior investigation had covered-up criminal conduct, and that the Fiesta Bowl had made numerous other improper expenditures. Our five-month investigation included 87 interviews of 52 individuals and the review of 55 gigabytes of electronic data and more than 10,000 additional hard copy documents. Our investigation culminated in a 276-page Final Report with 1,562 footnotes and thousands of additional pages of supporting schedules and spreadsheets. The report is publicly available here. The Final Report was covered by dozens of media outlets and has received widespread praise, including:
- The Arizona Republic's Editorial Board stated: "The Fiesta Bowl executive committee should never lose sight of what appears to have saved their event's bacon, at least for now: the unflaggingly candid 276-page report released by the Fiesta Bowl itself, which exposed all those ugly warts." Other reporting from The Arizona Republic referred to the report as "comprehensive."
- A leading legal commentator stated: "Any lawyer or other person asked to lead a special investigation centered on wrongdoing of the type that now surrounds the Fiesta Bowl should read RKMC's report first."
- Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne called the report "comprehensive."
- The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Task Force -- a Task Force that was created to review the Fiesta Bowl's conduct and our Report -- called our investigation "exceedingly thorough" and noted that had the Special Committee not produced such a "thorough and open report" the Task Force "almost certainly would have recommended termination of the BCS Groups' involvement with the Fiesta Bowl."
- NCAA President Mark Emmert stated that "The [Fiesta Bowl] special report was obviously extremely detailed and outlined behaviors none of us would be supportive of and I think the board was forthright in putting all that information before the various bodies."
- Sports Illustrated's Austin Murphy noted that the Special Committee's investigation (in contrast to an earlier investigation) was "decidedly not a whitewash."
DiMassa v. Medtronic AVE: Trade secret litigation concerning the Bonneau stent which was the platform for the AVE business. The case was in jury selection when it settled, employing a creative settlement model. The case was then arbitrated to a JAMS judge in San Francisco.
Represented Unocal Corporation against ARCO, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell and Texaco in action for patent infringement on reformulated gasoline technology.

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation in which we practice and does not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.

Bar Admissions

Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Minnesota
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa

Education

Columbia University School of Law, J.D. (1989)
University of Iowa, B.A. with highest distinction and with honors in Economics and Political Science

See Library Tab for articles, publications and presentations
by Joel Mintzer

EVALUATION

Fill in the requested information below, then submit your evaluation to have your scores calculated as part of Joel A. Mintzer's Lawdragon ranking.

By submitting this form, you agree to Lawdragon's TERM OF USE.

About You

First name:
Last name:
Title:
Company Name:
City:
State
Zip Code :
Email:	No fake e-mail addresses, please. We may need to contact you if there is a problem with your review.

Relationship

How do you know the person you are reviewing?

If you answered other, please explain:


Type of legal matter involved (provide case name if appropriate):

Ratings

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being excellent, please rate the attorney or judge:
EXPERTISE:		Did he or she demonstrate a high level of knowledge about the legal matter?
SERVICE:		Did this lawyer or judge provide good service? Was the lawyer or judge respectful and professional in his or her dealings with others?
QUALITY:		Is this the type of individual you are proud to have among the bar?
OVERALL:		How would you rate this attorney or judge overall from 1 to 10?

Your Review

Please provide any information you have about the rates charged by this lawyer or judge. If you are reviewing a public judge, please mark n/a.

Please describe your overall experience with this attorney or judge in the space below: (1000 characters or less)

Would you recommend this lawyer or judge to a friend?

Yes No