Photo of Mimi Dennis

Mimi S. Dennis represents leading national and global companies in commercial, civil, and product liability litigation and product regulatory counseling matters. Her clients include Class I and short line railroads, manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers.

With a focus on the rail, pharmaceutical, energy, and construction industries, Mimi defends clients in multidistrict proceedings, arbitrations, and other complex litigation. She also has first chair bench and jury trial experience. Mimi understands the nuances of the industries in which her clients operate, and she strives to help them balance litigation risks with business goals. Clients appreciate her hands-on approach and her sincere interest in developing strong personal relationships and a deep understanding of their businesses. Staying current on litigation issues, Mimi has published several articles on environmental and civil litigation matters, ranging from a discussion of class action certification to defenses in pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases.

On the counseling side of her practice, Mimi helps clients limit risk and avoid liability and compliance issues. Representing clients in the food, beverage, chemical, medical device, and pharmaceutical industries, she handles regulatory matters before federal and state agencies, including FDA, EPA, and IRBs. Acting as an advisor to her clients, she carefully assesses risks, recommends actions, and counsels clients on contract formation, negotiation, and interpretation.

Mimi is a member of the firm’s Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation, Product Risk Management, and Transportation groups. In 2024, she was selected as a member of the Law360 Transportation Editorial Board and accepted as a member of the General Counsel Committee of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA). Mimi maintains an active pro bono practice focused on providing legal services to immigrant women and girls who are survivors of gender-based violence, and has also served as a guardian ad litem in D.C. Superior Court.

Two important developments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are potentially significant to the retail industry, but may have escaped widespread attention in light of recent worldwide events. Somewhat unusually, both proposals are administered by EPA under TSCA, despite the fact that TSCA typically applies to chemical products, not manufactured articles.

Comment and compliance deadlines

© Thinkstock

Multiple class actions have alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for use of automated dialing systems (auto-dialer). In a 2015 Order, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defined an auto-dialer under the TCPA to mean any device with the theoretical “capacity” to place autodialed calls, even if had the potential to be transformed into an auto-dialer. Importantly, the FCC’s definition was prospective and applied even if additional software was required. However, several recent cases have narrowed the scope of the definition of “auto-dialer,” creating a potential hurdle for plaintiffs and creating confusion about the viability of class actions that hinge on whether the marketing platforms used to send messages to consumers qualify as “auto-dialers.”

In March, in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2018), the D.C. Circuit limited the FCC’s 2015’s broad prospective definition of auto-dialer, stating that it would “subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the act’s coverage” and that the statute did not necessitate such a “sweeping swoop.”  Instead, the court reasoned, the proper analysis of whether a device is an auto-dialer under the TCPA should turn on the capacity of a device to behave as an auto-dialer, as well as the amount of effort required to turn a device into an auto-dialer.

Continue Reading Who You Gonna Call? (Just Don’t Use an Autodialer!)