Download PDF
Cathy R. Gordon

Cathy R. Gordon

Partner

PA – Pittsburgh
T: 412.291.8246 | F: 412.586.4512

vCard

Cathy has extensive experience in a broad range of civil defense litigation matters. She has defended manufacturers and suppliers in products liability, premises liability and toxic tort cases nationwide. Cathy has represented companies in litigation involving accidents and injuries, employment-related matters, commercial disputes, environmental insurance coverage and cost recovery. She also is involved in defending First Amendment rights through her representation and counseling of clients, as well as through consulting and drafting legislation.

As trial counsel at Litchfield Cavo, Cathy has obtained defense verdicts for her clients in state and federal courts. She has litigated matters involving personal injury, property damage, products liability, toxic exposures, environmental contamination and cost recovery, consumer fraud and ADA claims. As appellate counsel, Cathy has represented her clients in Pennsylvania appellate courts, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Courts of Minnesota and Wisconsin. In addition, she serves as Coordinating Counsel for clients whose toxic tort litigation extends across multiple jurisdictions.

Practices

Representative Experience
  • Obtained a directed verdict in the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a mining company in a consolidated trial involving three former refractory workers suffering from lung injuries caused by their work with our client’s raw materials
  • Obtained summary judgment in numerous lawsuits filed against utility companies for injuries sustained while working on the utilities’ premises; established no duty owed to plaintiff contractors
  • Achieved a very favorable settlement on behalf of a New York real estate development company in a federal lawsuit involving a traumatic brain injury sustained in an accident on client’s property
  • Favorably resolved a contentious federal lawsuit on behalf of a UK manufacturer related to commercial claims related to the design, manufacture and sale of its dynamic rail weighing systems
  • Obtained a directed verdict in Winnebago County, Wisconsin on behalf of a mining company in a case involving personal injuries related to exposure to the client’s raw materials; the Appellate and Supreme Courts of Wisconsin upheld the verdict and, in a case of first impression, adopted the “sophisticated user” defense which led to the dismissal of all similar claims pending against the client in that state
Representative Matters
  • Jesensky v. A-Best Products, et al., Case No. 06-3102, slip op. (3rd Circuit July 11, 2008), cert. denied (U.S. March 23, 2009)
    • Jesensky v A-Best Products, et al., 287 Fed. Appx. 968 (C.A.3 (Pa) 2008)
  • Gray v Badger Mining Corporation, 664 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. App. 2003); 676 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2004)
  • Haase v Badger Mining Corporation, 266 Wis.2d 970, 669 N.W.2d 737 (Wis. App. 2003); 274 Wis.2d 143, 682 N.W.2d 389 (Wis. 2004)
  • Baldwin v Badger Mining Corporation, 663 N.W.2d 382 (Wis. App. 2003)