Elizabeth Kramer joined the firm as a summer intern over five years ago and remains a dedicated advocate for plaintiffs in complex matters spanning a variety of practice areas, including consumer protection, antitrust, securities and financial fraud, and civil rights.
Elizabeth is currently on the co-lead counsel team for women who were sexually abused by gynecologist George Tyndall M.D. in a class action against Tyndall and the University of Southern California. The case, In re USC Student Health Center Litigation, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In addition, two of Elizabeth’s technology-related consumer cases against HP and Lenovo have resulted in court-approved settlements that will provide substantial monetary and non-monetary relief for tens of thousands of individuals.
Additionally, as a key contributor to the firm’s work in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Elizabeth focuses on discovery of the defendants and non-parties in this large-scale multidistrict proceeding involving allegations of price fixing by dozens of manufacturers of generic drugs.
J.D., University of San Francisco School of Law
B.A., cum laude, University of California, Santa Cruz
- Central District of California
- Northern District of California
- District of Colorado
- Northern District of Illinois
- Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- Western District of Texas
- Western District of Wisconsin
- Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Paeste v. Government of Guam
Alongside Guam-based co-counsel, the firm challenged the government of Guam’s longstanding practice of indefinitely withholding income tax refunds due to Guam taxpayers, while at the same time, Guam officials made refund payments to select individuals through a program plagued by favoritism. We secured a permanent injunction reforming the government’s administration of tax refunds. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s orders, leading to a complete victory for the taxpayers in the published decision, Paeste v. Government of Guam, 798 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2015). In 2016, when the government of Guam asked the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the taxpayer’s win, Elizabeth partnered with the Stanford Law School’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to successfully oppose Supreme Court review.
In re Peregrine PFG Best Customer Accounts Litigation
Served as the firm’s lead associate representing investors in a lawsuit against U.S. Bank and JPMorgan Chase arising from the collapse of Peregrine Financial Group Inc. The former Peregrine customers were seeking to recover the millions of dollars stolen from them out of special accounts entitled to heightened bank protection. Plaintiffs’ efforts led to settlements with JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank worth over $75 million.
In re Oppenheimer California Municipal Bond Fund Securities Litigation
The firm prosecuted this securities class action on behalf of investors who alleged that the defendants deceived investors about the fund’s risks. The fund was marketed as a conservative investment that would preserve investors’ capital when, in fact, the fund was excessively risky and lost 45 percent of its value in 2008. Elizabeth was instrumental to the plaintiffs achieving class certification following a two-day evidentiary hearing, and to the firm’s work on expert discovery, dispositive motion practice, and the negotiations that resulted in a $50.75 million settlement.
Honors and Awards
Honors and Awards
- Named to Best Lawyers in America (2019)
- Named to the Northern California Rising Stars list (2016-present)
Community & Professional
- Member, Consumer Attorneys of California
- Member, San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
- Member, Women Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
- Member, American Association For Justice
- The Daily Bruin08.06.2019
- USC/Tyndall Sexual Assault Survivor Op-Ed: “USC Gynecologist George Tyndall Abused Me & My Fight For Justice Goes Beyond His Trial.”07.29.2019
- Impact Fund Class Action Conference02.19.2019
- Author, “Taxation of e-Discovery Costs Under 28 U.S.C. 1920(4): A Cost Shifting Trap for the Unwary”American Association for Justice Class Action Litigation Newsletter07.2015