Jessica Linse is a litigation attorney who focuses on commercial and business litigation as well as regulatory matters. She represents clients in complex disputes in state and federal courts and has experience resolving matters through alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration.

Jessica’s regulatory experience includes regularly appearing before state and federal agencies, handling contested case hearings, enforcement actions, and administrative record development to position matters for favorable outcomes and, when necessary, judicial review. Jessica has also represented the largest investor-owned water and wastewater companies in base rate cases before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and in other regulatory proceedings.

In addition, Jessica’s practice includes ERISA-related litigation, where she represents clients in disputes involving employee benefit plans and fiduciary obligations. She works with clients through all phases of litigation, from early case assessment and investigation through resolution, helping them manage risk and navigate high-stakes disputes efficiently and strategically.

While in law school, Jessica served as a mediator in the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Program, where she facilitated negotiations and drafted settlement agreements during active litigation proceedings.

Education

  • Emory University School of Law (J.D., with honors)
    • Drexel University (B.S., magna cum laude)

      Bar Admission

      • Pennsylvania

      Court Admissions

      • All Federal Courts in Pennsylvania
      • All State Courts in Pennsylvania

      Professional Affiliations

      • American Bar Associations

      Recognition

      • Named one of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®in America in Commercial Litigation, 2026

      Languages

      • German
      Publications
      All Publications
      Court Dismisses ERISA Fee Suit Against Kellogg, Reinforcing Pleading Standards for Plan Sponsors
      Key Takeaways Michigan federal court dismisses ERISA fee claims against Kellogg with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege fiduciary breaches tied to 401(k) recordkeeping fees, ending the multi-year litigation effort. Generalized fee comparisons remain insufficient to plead imprudence. The decision reinforces that ERISA plaintiffs must allege specific, like‑for‑like comparisons to survive a motion to dismiss. Documented oversight remains key to early dismissal. For plan sponsors, the ruling underscores that well‑documented, routine recordkeeping arrangements and monitoring processes can help defeat speculative ERISA fee litigation at the pleading stage. A recent federal court dismissal reaffirms the Sixth Circuit’s strict standards for pleading fiduciary breach. For plan sponsors, the case is a reminder that strong fiduciary documentation can help prevent weak claims
      Read More
      Supreme Court Revives ERISA Litigation Dismissed in Second Circuit: Will the Supreme Court’s Adoption of a Liberal Pleading Standard Increase ERISA Class Actions Under Section 406?
      On Thursday, April 17, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a less demanding pleading standard is applicable when plaintiffs bring an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action under ERISA Section 406, despite concerns that this might lead to a flood of meritless claims. This recent decision affects nearly all employers. The underlying question in Cunningham v. Cornell University, et al.—whether pleading a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA Section 406 involving a plan and a party in interest also required pleading elements of ERISA Section 408, which lays out exemptions to that prohibition—has been answered unanimously by the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 17. Succinctly, the Court held that “[t]o state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need
      Read More