Dana Baiocco

Dana Baiocco, Partner, is an internationally recognized trial attorney who focuses her legal practice on complex product liability, consumer products, aviation, manufacturing, and mass tort litigation, representing companies in high-stakes matters in federal, state, and international courts. Dana is a former Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the federal agency with jurisdiction over tens of thousands of consumer products, certain packaging, fireworks, and having additional responsibility with other federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for overlapping product categories.

Nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Ms. Baiocco served as a CPSC Commissioner from 2018 to 2022 (under two Administrations), where she helped shape consumer product safety policy, presided over, and participated in, public hearings, rulemaking proceedings, and voted on product bans and regulatory actions involving consumer products and on-line marketplace platforms and distributors. Dana appeared and testified before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Hazardous Products and Consumer Safety (June 20, 2019) and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce (April 9, 2019) and has worked with various Congressional committee members on draft legislation and with industry trade organizations to opine on other pending legislation. She also served as the CPSC ‘s designated principal member on the U.S. Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC), a working group of more than fifty (50) federal agencies with import and expert responsibilities. Her experience as a federal regulator provides business clients in many industries with a keen, practical perspective and valuable understanding of governmental oversight and process, product manufacturing and distribution obligations, product safety and sales compliance, risk management, investigations, quality control programs, and safety strategies.

Before joining the CPSC, she was a partner at an AmLaw 100 firm where she concentrated on business and tort litigation, representing clients in complex, high-profile matters involving aviation components, e-mobility and recreational vehicles, sports facilities, industrial equipment and tools, business bankruptcy issues and antitrust allegations.   

Dana served as a federal law clerk to U.S. District Judge Gustave Diamond of the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1996-1998 and further distinguished her legal education through the Cambridge University Summer Law Program, where she received instruction from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Summer 1994) and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Summer 1995).

Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Baiocco led the following Representative matters: 

• Stephanie Taubin v. John Henry, Trustee of Olde Town Team Realty Trust (Case No. 1584CV-2565 (Suffolk County Superior Court, 2015) – Represented the Boston Red Sox and its principal owner, Billionaire John Henry, in an action brought by an individual for injuries she sustained from a foul ball strike at a Red Sox game. Ms. Taubin was sitting in the EMC Club at Fenway Park, the luxury box area in the upper deck behind home plate when she was hit by a foul ball (hit by David “Big Papi” Ortiz). She sought $9 million in damages. A defense verdict was issued following trial.
• Junitha Bee, et al v. Parker Hannifin Corp., et al (Los Angeles County, CA) – Retained as lead counsel of aviation component part manufacturer for post-trial motions, damages trials, appeal to be filed following an adverse verdict on liability, damages in wrongful death actions arising out of Silk Air Flight 185 near Palembang, Indonesia in 1997.
• Jean Carpenter Carnahan, et al v. Parker Hannifin Corp., et al (Case No. 00CV230733, Jackson Cty, Missouri Circuit Court, 2004) – Led the trial team in a two-month jury trial to verdict in general aviation accident which claimed the life of former Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan.  Responsible for overall formulation of strategy, witness development and preparation (including Astronaut Jim Lovell), trial motions and filings, and defense of punitive damages claims. Also retained as lead counsel for Parker Hannifin in connection with the anticipated appeal by plaintiffs following denial of their motion for new trial on punitive damages.
• Matthew Brewer, et al v. Dodson Aviation, et al (Case No. 2:04-cv-2180, W.D. Wash) and John Vanderventer, et al. v. Brewer, et al., Case No. 05-2-29675-5 SEA (King County, WA) – Lead counsel in wrongful death cases arising out of a single-engine Beech Bonanza crash that claimed the lives of the pilot, his wife, and two minor children. The estates of the pilot and his spouse sued in federal court; the estates of the two minor children filed similar claims in Washington state court. After convincing the federal and state courts to hear Parker’s choice of law and summary judgment motions together, the motions were ultimately granted and Parker Hannifin was dismissed with prejudice in federal court, notwithstanding that discovery had not yet closed or that plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint. See Brewer, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006); Brewer, 2006 WL 32319745 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 7, 2006) (Zilly, J.)  This was the first summary disposition for Parker Hannifin in a case involving the (frequent) overhaul of its product. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contending that the district court erred in its application of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA).  After oral argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 
• Bezdek v. Vibram USA, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 3d 324 (D. Mass 2015); Bezdek v. Vibram USA, Inc., 809 F.3d 78 (1^st Cir. 2015). First chair counsel in these class action lawsuits brought in Massachusetts, Illinois, and California, in which putative class members alleged that Vibram deceptively advertised and marketed the health benefits of its popular “barefoot” FiveFingers running shoes. After discovery, Vibram negotiated a $3.5 million settlement to cover all cases, a nationwide class fund, and attorney’s fees. Vibram obtained preliminary approval of that class action settlement. Three individuals objected to the proposed settlement, claiming that the parties misrepresented the amount to be refunded to FiveFingers purchasers. The Massachusetts District Court (Woodlock, J.) approved the settlement agreement over the objections. The objectors appealed. See Bezdek v. Vibram USA, Inc., Nos. 15-1207, 15-1208 (1^st Cir.); DeFalco v. Vibram USA, Inc., No. 15-1209 (1^st Cir.). On appeal, the First Circuit confirmed that there was no misrepresentation in the notices sent to class members. The appellate panel (Judges Torruella, Lynch, Barrons) concluded that the settlement was fair “given the uncertainty of success that the plaintiffs faced at trial,” and the considerable expenses to be incurred trying the matter. The First Circuit’s ruling finally resolved all pending actions against Vibhram alleging false advertising.