• vcard
  • Education
    • J.D., The George Washington University Law School, 2000
    • B.S., Truman State University, 1997
Providing individualized attention to each and every client is important to Bill Curtis, because he recognizes that each client’s situation is unique. That personal attention includes helping each client develop a customized strategy tailored to the particular needs of that business. Bill primarily focuses on helping clients navigate environmental and mass tort litigation, but he is also an experienced counselor on a wide range of legal and business issues. Bill takes a long-term view of clients’ success, and he helps them develop practical solutions to any problems they might face.
  • Represented manufacturer in a putative class action alleging property damage from a release of mercury. After a multiple-day hearing, the court denied the motion for class certification and the case, along with nine other personal injury cases, was favorably settled.
  • Defended Occidential Chemical Corp. in a 300-plus plaintiff action alleging property damage and emotional distress from mercury released at a mercury cell chloralkali plant. The case settled favorably after plaintiffs’ experts were excluded.
  • Helped obtain defense verdict for Tate & Lyle Sucralose, a global provider of ingredients and solutions to the food and beverage industry, in a two-week, 13-plaintiff toxic tort case in state court in southern Alabama. The jury returned the defendant’s verdict in 45 minutes.
  • Residents filed a property damage lawsuit over a plume of gasoline under their neighborhood. Plaintiffs claimed that the client, a pipeline company, was jointly and severally liable for all of the damage associated with the plume. The case settled shortly after demonstrating that the client could not be held jointly and severally liable for the property damage.
  • Plaintiffs outside of New Jersey sought a medical monitoring class action in New Jersey because their home state did not recognize claims for medical monitoring. Plaintiffs claimed that New Jersey had an interest in the case because waste was shipped from New Jersey to their state. The New Jersey State Court dismissed plaintiffs claim because New Jersey was not the right forum.