Andrew D. Prins

Andrew's experience includes:

Government-Facing Litigation

• Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. FDA, 141 F.4th 254 (D.C. Cir. 2025): Affirming a lower court victory permitting client to market its innovative narcolepsy drug, notwithstanding a competitor’s alleged orphan drug exclusivity
• Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America v. Morrissey, 760 F. Supp. 3d 439 (S.D.W. Va. 2024): Obtaining a preliminary injunction against enforcement of state law attempting to regulate the federal 340B drug pricing program on preemption grounds
• R.J. Reynolds and ITG Brands v. FDA, 762 F. Supp. 3d 529 (E.D. Tex. 2025): Obtaining a preliminary injunction against enforcement of FDA’s “graphic warnings” requirements for likely statutory violations by agency
• Zenwork v. SSA, No. 25-0036 (N.D. Tex. 2025): Successfully resolving a case in which the government agreed to reinstate access to a tax document filing system following a challenge to the agency’s statutory authority
• SCAN Health Plan v. HHS, 2024 WL 2815789 (D.D.C. 2024): Invalidating CMS’s erroneous calculation of SCAN Health Plan’s Medicare Advantage Star Rating as inconsistent with the governing regulations
• United Therapeutics v. HRSA, 102 F.4th 452 (D.C. Cir. 2024): Affirming a lower court victory invalidating violation determination issued by HHS/ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) concerning the federal 340B drug pricing program 
• Endo Par Innovation Co. v. FDA, 2024 WL 2988904 (D.D.C. 2024): Obtaining preliminary injunction staying FDA approval of Endo’s competitor’s drug product, due to the agency’s likely arbitrary policy change
• Insight Global v. DHS, No. 24-2192 (N.D. Ga. 2024): Successfully resolving a case in which the government agreed to reopen and grant over 80 denied H-1B visas for nurses following a challenge to the agency’s statutory authority
• Jazz Pharmaceuticals v. FDA, 2024 WL 4625731 (D.D.C. 2024): Defeating, as intervenor-defendant, the plaintiff’s attempt to remove the client’s drug from the market due to alleged orphan drug exclusivity
• Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, 85 F.4th 1263 (9th Cir. 2023): Affirming a lower court victory enjoining enforcement of California’s Proposition 65 on First Amendment grounds
• Fontem USA v. FDA, 82 F.4th 1207 (D.C. Cir. 2023): Vacating a marketing denial order that the FDA issued concerning the client’s e-cigarette applications as unlawful under the Tobacco Control Act and arbitrary and capricious
• Jacobus Pharmaceutical Co. v. Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, No. 21A328, 2022 WL 20619490 (U.S. 2022): Defeating attempt by the client’s competitor to obtain a Supreme Court stay of lower-court judgment invalidating the competitor’s drug approval
• United Therapeutics v. HRSA, 2021 WL 5161783 (D.D.C. 2021): Invalidating violation determination that HHS/HRSA issued concerning the federal 340B drug pricing program because the determination rested on an invalid statutory interpretation
• Catalyst Pharmaceuticals v. FDA, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021): Reversing district court and directing that judgment be entered in client’s favor in a case challenging FDA’s approval of a competitor’s drug due to the client’s orphan drug exclusivity 
• Eagle Pharmaceuticals v. FDA, 952 F.3d 323 (D.C. Cir. 2020): Affirming a lower court victory that concluded the FDA’s interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act’s exclusivity provision was inconsistent with the statute
• Genus Lifesciences v. FDA, 486 F. Supp. 3d 450 (D.D.C. 2020): Granting partial summary judgment to Genus Lifesciences and concluding that the FDA erred in approving a competitor’s drug product
• Institute for Justice v. IRS, 941 F.3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 2019): Obtaining a rare reversal of a grant of summary judgment to the government under the Freedom of Information Act
• Charter Communications v. US, 722 Fed. Appx. 604 (9th Cir. 2019): Invalidating part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a content-based regulation of speech inconsistent with the First Amendment
• Nat’l Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 747 F. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2019): Dismissing a challenge to the client’s pesticide approval on jurisdictional grounds
• Athenex v. FDA, 397 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2019): Defeating a challenge by the client’s competitor to FDA’s regulatory determination in the client’s favor regarding bulk drug compounding
• Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers v. Zeise, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2018): Granting a permanent injunction against enforcing California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds
• Eagle Pharmaceuticals v. FDA, 2018 WL 3838265 (D.D.C. 2018): Ordering FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity for Eagle’s drug and setting aside its prior refusal to do so as inconsistent with the statute
• Par Sterile Products v. FDA, 1:17-cv-02221 (D.D.C. 2017): Challenging an FDA “guidance” document purporting to exercise “enforcement discretion” over certain drug compounding activities
• Atay v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016): Affirming a lower court victory invalidating a county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law
• Residents for The Beverly Hills Garden and Open Space Initiative v. City of Beverly Hills, 2:16-cv-05532 (C.D. Cal. 2016): Obtaining on First Amendment grounds a preliminary injunction against enforcing a city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
• Robert Ito Farm v. County of Maui, 111 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (D. Haw. 2015): Invalidating a county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law
• New York Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 23 N.Y.3d 681 (2014): Affirming a lower court victory invalidating New York City’s “soda ban”
• Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. FDA, No. 1:14-cv-00786 (D.D.C. 2014): Defeating a competitor’s challenge to the client’s pending FDA generic drug application
• Ctr. for Food Safety v. USDA, 718 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013): Affirming a lower court victory defeating a challenge to biotechnology crop approval
• New York Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2013 WL 1343607 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013): Invalidating New York City’s “soda ban” on constitutional grounds
• Walgreen Co. v. DEA, No. 12-1397 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 10, 2012): Challenging a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforcement action and regulatory interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act
• Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, 3:12-cv-04545 (N.D. Cal. 2012): Obtaining on First Amendment grounds a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against enforcing a city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
• Ctr. for Food Safety v. USDA, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2012): Defeating a challenge to the client’s biotechnology crop approval

Other Complex Litigation

• Hart v. Charter Communications Inc., 2023 WL 3914285 (C.D. Cal. 2023): Dismissing claims of lead putative class representative asserting nationwide false advertising claims based on allegedly deficient internet speeds
• Hale v. Teladoc Health Inc., 2021 WL 1163925 (S.D.N.Y 2021): Dismissing with prejudice TCPA class action for failure to state a claim for vicarious liability 
• Suttles v. Facebook Inc., 461 F. Supp. 3d 479 (W.D. Tex. 2020): Dismissing with prejudice TCPA case for failure to adequately pled existence of a “telephone solicitation” and use of an “ATDS”
• Hart v. Charter Communications Inc., 814 Fed. Appx. 211 (9th Cir. 2020): Affirming lower court victory compelling arbitration based on contract formed through inquiry notice
• Hunter v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2019 WL 3812063 (S.D.N.Y. 2019): Defeating class certification in case alleging about 150 million phone calls placed in violation of the TCPA
• Olsen v. Charter Communications Inc., 2019 WL 3779190 (S.D.N.Y. 2019): Compelling plaintiffs in putative class action into arbitration concerning claims asserting misrepresentation of internet broadband speeds
• Hart v. Charter Communications Inc., 2017 WL 6942425 (C.D. Cal. 2017): Compelling plaintiffs into arbitration concerning claims asserting misrepresentation of Internet broadband speeds
• Robert Ito Farm Inc. v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2016): Defeating challenge by proposed intervener to denial of intervention in the lower court
• Miller v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2016 WL 7471302 (C.D. Cal. 2016): Dismissing injunctive TCPA claim for lack of Article III standing and compelling remaining damages claim to arbitration
• In re: Time Warner Cable Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1388 (J.P.M.L. 2016): Denying centralization of TCPA class actions