Andrew D. Prins

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA
 
 

Andrew Prins is a litigation partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins. He represents clients in complex high-stakes litigation matters, including disputes with the government and consumer class actions.

Mr. Prins is a versatile litigator who represents clients before trial courts, appellate courts, administrative agencies, and arbitrators. He works with clients in a number of highly regulated industries, especially those in the pharmaceutical, healthcare, biotechnology, telecommunications, and technology sectors.

His government-facing matters often involve challenges to the legality of government regulatory actions that raise precedent-setting questions of constitutional law, administrative law, federal preemption, jurisdiction, and statutory interpretation. In addition to litigating these issues on both the plaintiff and defense side in court, he provides pre-dispute counseling to clients in regulatory matters that may result in litigation.

He also represents clients in other forms of complex litigation. He regularly defends clients in consumer class actions and a contested class has never been certified in one of his cases. He also frequently represents clients in arbitration proceedings in matters that typically involve a complex regulatory overlay.

He is an expert in the statutory and regulatory regimes applicable to his clients, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Plant Protection Act (PPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and various consumer protection statutes.

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Prins served as a judicial law clerk to Judge J. L. Edmondson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. During law school, he was an editor of the Duke Law Journal. For 10 years prior to practicing law, he served in various senior-level engineering and management roles at a large multinational internet and telecommunications company, where he was responsible for network architecture and data security.

Past government-facing litigation matters include:

  • Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA, -- F.4th --, 2021 WL 4465818 (11th Cir. 2021): reversing district court and directing that judgment be entered in client’s favor in case challenging FDA’s approval of competitor’s drug due to client’s orphan drug exclusivity
  • Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA, 952 F.3d 323 (D.C. Cir. 2020): affirming lower court victory that concluded FDA’s interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act’s exclusivity provision was inconsistent with the statute
  • Genus Lifesciences, Inc. v. FDA, 486 F. Supp. 3d 450 (D.D.C. 2020): granting partial summary judgment to client and concluding that FDA erred during its approval of competitor’s drug product
  • Institute for Justice v. IRS, 941 F.3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 2019): obtaining rare reversal of a grant of summary judgment to the government under the Freedom of Information Act, after argument by Mr. Prins
  • Charter Communications, Inc. v. United States, 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 challenge to client’s pesticide approval on jurisdictional grounds
  • Athenex Inc. v. FDA, 397 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2019): defeating challenge by client’s competitor to FDA's regulatory determination in favor of client regarding bulk drug compounding
  • National Association of Wheat Growers v. Zeise, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2018): granting permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds
  • Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA, 2018 WL 3838265 (D.D.C. 2018): ordering FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity for client’s drug and setting aside FDA’s prior refusal to do so as inconsistent with the statute
  • Par Sterile Products, LLC v. FDA, 1:17-cv-02221 (D.D.C. 2017): challenging 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 lower court victory invalidating 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 city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
  • Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui, 111 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (D. Haw. 2015): invalidating 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 lower court victory invalidating New York City’s “soda ban”
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. FDA, No. 1:14-cv-00786 (D.D.C. 2014): defeating competitor’s challenge to client’s pending FDA generic drug application
  • Ctr. for Food Safety v. USDA, 718 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013): affirming lower court victory defeating 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 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 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 challenge to client’s biotechnology crop approval

Other past litigation matters include:

  • 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
  • Suttles v. Facebook, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 3d 479 (W.D. Tex. 2020): dismissing with prejudice TCPA case for failure to state a claim
  • 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, after argument by Mr. Prins
  • Hunter v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2019 WL 3812063 (S.D.N.Y. 2019): defeating class certification in case alleging approximately 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, after argument by Mr. Prins
  • 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, after argument by Mr. Prins
  • 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, after argument by Mr. Prins
 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.