M. Gabrielle Hils , Partner

Phone: 513-977-8175
Email: gabrielle.hils@dinsmore.com
Website: www.dinsmore.com
Professional Biography:
Gabrielle Hils is a partner in the Litigation Department of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. She also is a member of the firm's Product Liability Practice Group. Gabrielle has extensive experience defending drug and medical device manufacturers in state and federal courts, including federal multidistrict litigation proceedings. She also defends clients in mass tort and class action litigation. Gabrielle represents companies in premises liability cases involving chemical and asbestos exposure. She also represents clients in business litigation. She defends financial institutions, finance companies and loan servicers in lender liability, consumer credit and predatory lending cases.
Organization: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Articles in the National Law Review database by M. Gabrielle Hils :

United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Determine Whether a Llitigant can Purposely Limit the Amount in Controversy to Defeat CAFA Jurisdiction (Posted On Sun, 2012-09-09 12:25)
The Seventh Circuit holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(9) relating to securities class actions is an exception to CAFA jurisdiction, not a prerequisite (Posted On Mon, 2012-08-20 01:03)
The Sixth Circuit rules on the deadline for completing action on a CAFA appeal and whether a third-party defendant may remove under CAFA (Posted On Sun, 2012-08-19 19:04)
The Second Circuit affirms denial of remand in a CAFA case where the plaintiff failed to raise a procedural defect in the notice of removal in a timely manner (Posted On Sat, 2012-08-18 23:02)
The Ninth Circuit finds that the removing defendant met its evidentiary burden by proving the CAFA amount in controversy to a legal certainty (Posted On Fri, 2012-08-17 21:06)
In a case with a tortured procedural history involving three attempts at removal, a federal district court in Oregon remands a class action to state court based upon the defendant’s failure to satisfy CAFA’s amount in controversy (Posted On Fri, 2012-08-17 05:04)
A federal district court in Louisiana addresses amount in controversy requirements in holding that a multi-plaintiff case is neither a class action nor a mass action under CAFA (Posted On Thu, 2012-08-16 14:01)
Northern District of Illinois Holds that Plaintiffs’ Proposal of a Consolidated Trial May Trigger Federal Jurisdiction Under CAFA as a Mass Action (Posted On Thu, 2012-08-16 01:04)
Third Circuit vacates order granting the defendant leave to appeal an order remanding a class action case to state court where post-remand the state court dismissed the case (Posted On Wed, 2012-08-15 12:06)
Federal district court in NY holds CAFA’s Home State Exception is not jurisdictional, and CAFA imposes no deadline for raising the exception when an action is originally filed in federal court (Posted On Wed, 2012-08-15 01:08)
Eighth Circuit affirms denial of remand in a case where the plaintiff attempted to challenge the court’s CAFA jurisdiction based on an amended complaint filed after removal (Posted On Tue, 2012-08-14 10:16)
Ninth Circuit reverses a remand order where the district court erroneously refused to consider jurisdictional evidence submitted by the removing party (Posted On Tue, 2012-08-14 01:04)
The Seventh Circuit holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(9) relating to securities class actions is an exception to CAFA jurisdiction, not a prerequisite (Posted On Mon, 2012-08-13 14:01)
The Eighth Circuit holds that stipulations filed contemporaneously with a complaint limiting damages to an amount below CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold may be used to defeat CAFA jurisdiction (Posted On Mon, 2012-08-13 11:05)
The Ninth Circuit Finds in a Recent Parens Patriae Action that the Case is 99 Persons Short of a Mass Action under CAFA (Posted On Sun, 2012-08-12 14:25)
House Subcommittee Weighs CAFA Successes and Opportunities Seven Years after the Legislation’s Enactment (Posted On Sun, 2012-08-12 03:29)
An Arkansas District Court Holds That a Stipulation as to the Amount in Controversy Contained in the Body of the Complaint is Sufficient to Defeat CAFA Jurisdiction (Posted On Sat, 2012-08-11 15:50)
The Seventh Circuit Examines CAFA Amount in Controversy Evidence under the Legally Impossible Standard (Posted On Fri, 2012-08-10 22:10)
A Federal District Court in Florida Awards Attorneys’ Fees to the Plaintiff Based on the Defendants’ Improvident Removal of the Case Pursuant to CAFA More than Two Years After the State Court Complaint was Filed (Posted On Fri, 2012-08-10 05:23)
The Second Circuit Interprets the Securities Exception to CAFA Jurisdiction and Remands a Case to State court (Posted On Thu, 2012-08-09 20:03)
A California District Court Holds that Defendant’s Proof of Amount in Controversy Falls Short of Both the Preponderance of the Evidence and the Legal Certainty Standards (Posted On Thu, 2012-08-09 10:20)
CAFA Connection: Cases Decided Under the Class Action Fairness Act (Posted On Mon, 2012-01-16 14:00)
Class Action Fairness Act : CAFA Connection Q3, 2011 (Posted On Thu, 2011-08-11 14:26)
Seeking CAFA Clarity: A Summary of Recent Case Law Addressing Challenges to Jurisdiction Under the Class Action Fairness Act (Posted On Fri, 2011-02-25 11:30)

Advertisement

Search the National Law Review Database

National Law Review Keyword Search

M. Gabrielle Hils , Partner

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Advertisement

Upcoming Legal Education Events:

Recent Contributions to the National Law Review

Advertisement

Legal Disclaimer