Aaron R. Gott

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Antitrust Litigation Attorney in La Jolla, CA

Bona Law PC
 | 4275 Executive Square, Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: 877-289-6074
Selected to Rising Stars: 2019
Licensed Since: 2013
Practice Areas:
  • Antitrust Litigation (60%),
  • Business Litigation (20%),
  • Appellate (20%)
Attorney Profile

Aaron R. Gott is a top-rated antitrust lawyer and a partner at Bona Law PC, a nationwide antitrust litigation firm based in San Diego, California. Aaron focuses his practice primarily on antitrust and other complex civil litigation, lawsuits against governmental entities, and appeals. Some of the matters that Mr. Gott has handled have included defending a contact lens retailer and a Japanese electronics component manufacturer in separate class actions involving claims of antitrust violations. He has also represented plaintiffs in antitrust litigation, including a lawsuits against Orange County municipalities for monopolizing ambulance markets in California federal court; a lawsuit for antitrust violations of cement and ready mix cartels in Atlanta federal court; and a lawsuit against the City of Richmond, Virginia and its corporate ambulance authority for monopolizing non-emergency ambulance markets in Virginia federal court. 

Held in high regard by his fellow attorneys for his successful track record and high degree of ethics, Mr. Gott has received an "Excellent" peer review rating through Avvo. Mr. Gott is admitted to practice before all California and Minnesota state courts. He is also admitted to practice before several federal trial and appellate courts:

  • The U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits
  • The U.S. Supreme Court 

From 2003 to 2012, Mr. Gott served his country with honor as a member of the United States Army Reserve, during which time he took part in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. During this period, he pursued his undergraduate education at Iowa State University, majoring in political science and receiving a Bachelor of Arts in 2007. Mr. Gott subsequently enrolled at Florida State University College of Law, and he was the executive editor of the Florida State University Law Review before obtaining his Juris Doctor magna cum laude in 2013 and being inducted into the Order of the Coif.

Aaron was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 2013 and California in 2017

 
Practice Areas
Lawyer Practice Area Pie Chart

Antitrust Litigation (60%): Antitrust & Trade Litigation

Business Litigation (20%): Trade Secret, Non-Compete Agreements

Appellate (20%): Appeals

Focus Areas

Antitrust & Trade Litigation, Trade Secret, Non-Compete Agreements, Appeals

Selections

top-imageSelected to Rising Stars for 1 years

Rising Stars: 2019

Email Me

To: Aaron R. Gott
Super Lawyers: Potential Client Inquiry

About Aaron Gott

Admitted: 2013, California

Professional Webpage: https://www.businessjustice.com/aaron-r-gott.html

Honors/Awards:

  • The Order of the Coif is the only national legal honor society in the United States. Graduating seniors who have completed at least 75 percent of their studies in graded courses and who rank among the top 10 percent of all graduating 3Ls in the school are eligible for nomination. The Florida State University College of Law holds one of the 77 chapters of the Coif in the United States. The Order of the Coif, which originated in England during the medieval period, is an honorary scholastic society that aims to encourage excellence in legal education. , Order of the Coif, The Florida State University College of Law, 2013
  • Research Assistant for Professor Dan Markel and Dean David E. Landau, Florida State University College of Law

Bar/Professional Activity:

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • United States Supreme Court, 2019
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • California
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of California
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California
  • United States District Court for the Central District of California
  • Minnesota

Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

  • Community associations are an innovative solution to myriad challenges that arise in the ownership of residential property. They solve collective action problems and fulfill desires in the common pursuit of neighborhood harmony. But when community associations go too far to conform and perfect the neighborhoods they govern, they often intrude on the fundamental liberties of individual property owners. Without intervention, they stand to threaten the rights of a substantial number of U.S. citizens where it matters most: in the home.State action doctrine provides an adequate safeguard against this threat. However, courts have struggled to hold community associations to account under the doctrine because they don’t fit squarely into the quintessential state action models. The result is seemingly faithful to the black letter of state action precedent, but not its purpose. This Note analyzes these problems and offers what may be a more faithful approach in both the letter and spirit of state action doctrine., Author, Ticky Tacky Little Governments: A More Faithful Approach to Community Associations Under the State Action Doctrine, The Florida State University Law Review, Real Estate, 2013
  • The Florida State University Law Review, Executive Editor, Florida State University College of Law
  • On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the NC Dental state action doctrine case, upholding the FTC’s challenge to the activities of the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners. Focusing on the Board membership’s participation in the market and the lack of state supervision over the Board’s activities, the Court held that Parker did not shield the Board from antitrust scrutiny. This panel will assess the legal and practical impacts of the Court’s decision. How will states move to immunize similar professional regulatory bodies? What constitutes “active supervision”? How will courts apply the rule of reason to suits involving regulatory board conduct? A distinguished set of amici, representing a wide range of interests on both sides of this important case, discussed these issues and more. Mr. Gott focused his comments on the practical effects of the decision. He argued the Court's opinion precludes state judicial review of administrative decisions as insufficient to constitute "active supervision," one of two requirements a licensing board defendant must show to escape antitrust liability under the state-action immunity. In other words, when a state professional-licensing board run by private members of the profession acts to exclude a class of competitors, review by a state court on appeal cannot, in Mr. Gott’s view, fairly be said to be the kind of supervision necessary to adopt the conduct as the “state’s own.” Because exemptions to the federal antitrust laws are narrowly drawn and disfavored, however, the Supreme Court required those seeking the state-action immunity to show the conduct was intended by state policy. Private parties seeking the immunity must also show that disinterested state officials have actually reviewed and approved of the conduct, Panelist, NC Dental Amici: The Scope of the State Action Doctrine, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 2015

Verdicts/Settlements:

  • Represent ready mix company in antitrust lawsuit alleging price-fixing and group boycotts by cement and ready mix cartels in Atlanta federal court, 2018
  • Represent National Federation of Independent Businesses Small Business Legal Center as amicus curiae in an antitrust state action immunity case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Salt River Project v. Tesla Energy), 2018
  • Represent plaintiff, a Department of Veterans Affairs ambulance contractor, in antitrust suit against City of Richmond, Virginia and its corporate ambulance authority for monopolizing the non-emergency ambulance services market and thwarting a competitively bid contract awarded to plaintiff by the VA in the Eastern District of Virginia, 2019
  • Represent antitrust defendant in immediate appeal of class certification order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and serve as lead attorney for briefing among joint defense group, 2018
  • Represent nonprofit complementary and alternative healthcare advocacy group as amicus curiae in federal antitrust case before the U.S. Supreme Court (N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC)
  • Represent National Federation of Independent Businesses Small Business Legal Center as amicus curiae in FOIA challenge to EPA’s proposed release of private business information to environmental interest groups (Am. Farm Bureau Fed. v. U.S. EPA), 2017
  • Represent group of scholars of law and economics as amicus curiae in constitutional challenge to state medical device certificate-of-need regulation. (Colon Health Centers of America v. Hazel)
  • Represent association of rental property owners as amicus curiae in constitutional challenge to municipal rental ban. (Dean et al. v. City of Winona)
  • Represent one of the nation's largest online contact lens retailers as amicus curiae in the Federal Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit relating to challenge to Utah law prohibiting enforcement of Uniform Pricing Policies against contact lens retailers. (Johnson & Johnson et al. v. Reyes)
  • Defend one of the nation's largest online contact lens retailers against class action antitrust claims in federal Multi-District Litigation. (In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation)
  • Defend Japanese capacitor manufacturer against class action antitrust claims in federal Multi-District Litigation. (In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation)
  • Successfully argued for and obtained termination of client from federal class action antitrust MDL (In re Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation). , 2016
  • Obtained complete dismissal of patent infringement claims and obtained judgment of attorneys fees and costs under the Octane Fitness "exceptional case" standard on behalf of ecommerce retailer sued by a notorious patent troll, 2017
  • Obtained $500,000+ judgment in breach of contract and fraud case including actual damages, attorneys fees, and punitive damages, 2018
  • Obtained dismissal of tortious interference complaint against business lender accused of lending money to debtor who already had a contract with a competitor, 2016
  • Obtained full and complete release of claims/covenant not to sue with no exchange of money in federal declaratory judgment action prosecuted on behalf of client accused of trade secret misappropriation, 2018
  • Obtained Ninth Circuit reversal of order granting summary judgment against plaintiff-appellant in immigration detainee abuse case, 2016

Newsletters:

Educational Background:

  • Iowa State University, B.A., Major: Political Science and Military Science
Find Me Online
Show More
Office Location for Aaron R. Gott

4275 Executive Square
Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037

Phone: 877-289-6074

Aaron R. Gott:

Last Updated: 4/16/2019

Page Generated: 0.24302220344543 sec