Biography | Gregg A. Tatarka

Gregg Tatarka focuses on managing national counsel coordinating programs for products liability, with a particular specialization in fire litigation. Generally, he represents manufacturers and distributors of consumer electronic products and appliances, such as microwave ovens, cooking ranges, air conditioners, clothes dryers and any product containing a lithium-ion battery. Gregg also represents manufacturers of gas-fired appliances and has represented manufacturers of flexible gas piping relating to fire cases, and he has defended manufacturers, distributors and retailers of products in litigation and arbitration hearings. Gregg is routinely admitted pro hac vice to represent clients in jurisdictions across the country.

Gregg is a cochair of Wilson Elser’s Product Liability, Prevention & Government Compliance Practice. He has published numerous articles and given presentations on fire investigation, lithium-ion batteries and supply-chain issues. Gregg also has represented clients in regulatory matters including before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and has defended clients in class actions in the United States and Canada.

Gregg is a tenacious advocate with the ability to drill down on details and pick up on technical issues. Prior to joining Wilson Elser, Gregg worked for the U.S. Department of Defense for three years.

Areas of Focus

Product Liability / Consumer Electronics and Appliances
Gregg defends manufacturers, distributors and retailers of consumer electronics and appliances in product liability litigation and claims concerning fires, burn injuries, fatalities, electrocutions/electric shocks, hearing loss and other bodily injuries. Gregg has nationally defended products such as household appliances; electric, kerosene and gas-powered heaters; cellular phones; lithium-ion batteries; and notebook computers. Gregg has researched and co-authored articles concerning fire investigations, the apparent manufacturer doctrine, lithium-ion batteries, cellular telephone product liability exposure and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. He has represented clients in multimillion-dollar property damage claims and in multiple fatality claims as well as allegations of electric shocks and hearing loss or other injuries from cellular telephones/RF exposure. Because he deals primarily with fire litigation, Gregg regularly attends fire-scene examinations and laboratory examinations, and swiftly develops strategies to best protect the client’s interests.

Education

Seton Hall University School of Law (J.D., 2005)
- cum laude
University of Notre Dame (B.A., 1998)
- magna cum laude

Bar Admissions

New York
New Jersey

Court Admissions

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Awards & Honors

AV® Preeminent™ Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

News Briefs

WEMED University 2024

October 14, 2024

News Briefs

Tatarka and Angotta Obtain Summary Judgment for Global Electronics Company

October 1, 2020

News Briefs

Lee and Tatarka Obtain Summary Judgment in Product Liability Suit

June 4, 2019

Tatarka, Lee and Marrelli Secure Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal in Cross-Border Product Liability Dispute

Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY) Suna Lee (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) and Samantha Marrelli (Associate-White Plains, NY) prevailed on a motion to dismiss in Bergen County Superior Court, New Jersey, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s global consumer electronics company client. In this product liability case, the plaintiff, a North Carolina corporation, filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against our client and a national lease-to-own retailer. The plaintiff alleged that its insureds, Missouri residents, sustained damage to their Missouri property from a 2024 fire caused by an allegedly defective product supplied by our client and the codefendant retailer.

Although the alleged incident, property damage, insureds, and all fact witnesses – including those involved in the fire investigation and subsequent inspection and repair – were located in Missouri, the plaintiff filed suit in New Jersey, relying primarily on the state being our client’s principal place of business. However, the plaintiff’s causes of action were based in Missouri case law. In lieu of filing an answer, Suna and Samantha moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens, demonstrating that New Jersey had no meaningful connection to the dispute and that Missouri was the appropriate forum.

In their reply to the plaintiff and codefendant’s opposition to the motion, which proved paramount to winning the case by distinguishing between the facts and the claimed case law, Suna and Samantha underscored that the plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation, the plaintiff’s insureds are Missouri residents, and Wilson Elser’s client is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in New Jersey. Additionally, they emphasized the absence of any reported decision, permitting a non-resident plaintiff to pursue out-of-state claims under that state's law, surviving a forum non conveniens challenge.

The court agreed and dismissed the action with prejudice, sparing our client from litigating a Missouri-based loss in an improper forum.

Gregg A. Tatarka, Suna Lee and Samantha M. Marrelli

Tatarka, Muse, and Bannan Secure Summary Judgment in Product Liability Subrogation Matter

Gregg A. Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY), Dirk J. Muse (Partner-Seattle), and Carinne Bannan (Associate-Seattle) prevailed on summary judgment in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, for a consumer product and appliance distributor. In this product liability subrogation matter, the plaintiff brought an action to recover costs paid to its insureds for damage to their home when the washing machine leaked. The insureds argued the manufacturer was liable for a manufacturing defect and claimed $400,000 in damages.

Gregg, Dirk, and Carinne filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of repose barred a claim against our appliance distributor client related to the 15-year-old machine and that there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect. The court concurred that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect and granted Wilson Elser’s motion, the decision bolstered by the plaintiff's expert's opinion that a common industry phenomenon caused the leak.

Gregg A. Tatarka, Dirk J. Muse and Carinne Bannan

Fiedel, Tatarka and Helgadottir Obtain a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of Lawsuit on Eve of Mediation

Alan Fiedel (Partner-Miami, FL), Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Mal Helgadottir (Associate-White Plains, NY) secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in a product liability case on behalf of a U.S. distributor of a foreign manufacturer. The plaintiff contended that a defective clothes dryer caused a fire at a residential property resulting in damages exceeding $350,000. The plaintiff initiated suit in Florida state court whereupon it was removed to federal court. Despite our expert’s multiple inspections of the product and consideration of other possible sources of fire ignition, the plaintiff continued to assert blame against our client. From the start, Alan and Gregg advised the plaintiff that his client did not have a case, that his experts performed a flawed analysis and that the dryer did not cause the fire. Ultimately, counsel failed to comply with a court-imposed deadline to disclose expert reports and tried to file a unilateral motion to extend submitting his reports. The Wilson Elser team vigorously opposed the motion, calling it gamesmanship because the parties agreed on simultaneous disclosure and our client and co-defendant produced our expert reports timely on the date ordered. Instead of responding to an order to show cause as to why counsel did not timely disclose experts, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice less than 24 hours prior to a court-mandated mediation. Our client did not pay any settlement amount.

Alan Fiedel and Gregg A. Tatarka

Tatarka, Helfrik, Heim and Helgadottir Secure Summary Judgment for Appliance Distributor in Subrogation Suit

Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY), Kristi Buchholz Helfrick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia), Angela Heim (Of Counsel-Philadelphia) and Mal Helgadottir (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Wilson Elser’s client, a consumer product and appliance distributor. The plaintiff in this subrogation recovery lawsuit, stemming from a residential house fire, alleges the fire was caused by a defective clothes dryer or the installation of the dryer. Gregg, Kristi, Angela, and Mal argued that the plaintiff presented no evidence establishing that our client placed the dryer into the marketplace in a defective condition or that our client failed to adequately warn of the hazards associated with the installation and use of the dryer. The court granted summary judgment in favor of our client on strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty and breach of contract causes of action.

Gregg A. Tatarka, Kristi Buchholz Helfrick and Angela M. Heim

Tatarka, Vespole, Iammatteo and Bakir Secure Summary Judgment Against $15 Million Demand in Motor Vehicle Accident Case

Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Mark Vespole (Partner-Madison, NJ), assisted by Madison, NJ associates Matthew Iammatteo and Mellis Bakir, obtained summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, for Wilson Elser's client, a manufacturer and distributor of home appliances. The plaintiff is a 19-year-old woman suffering the double amputation of her legs after being struck by a tractor-trailer swerving onto the shoulder while trying to avoid the plaintiff's disabled vehicle left in the roadway. The co-defendant's driver operated the tractor-trailer; the co-defendant is a trucking company contracted by our client for appliance delivery services.

The plaintiff alleges our client was negligent in hiring and retaining the trucking company. Gregg argued the client owed no duty to the plaintiff and performed a reasonable investigation into the company, confirming it was insured, registered, authorized to operate as a motor carrier and had a "Satisfactory" rating with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. He further argued that a product shipper is not held to the same duty as a motor carrier broker and that the plaintiff's argument ostensibly turns any product shipper into a guarantor for any motor carrier's negligence.

The court granted Wilson Elser's motion for summary judgment, holding that the carrier was competent to perform the task for which it was retained and concurring that our client performed reasonable due diligence in selecting and retaining the motor carrier. The case was dismissed with prejudice, denying the plaintiff's $15 million demand to our client.

Gregg A. Tatarka, Mark R. Vespole and Mellis Bakir

Bashor, Lai, and Tatarka Secure Summary Judgment and Dismissal in Phone Explosion case

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas) , I-Che Lai (Associate-Las Vegas) and Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in United States District Court, District of Nevada on behalf of a global electronics company where the Plaintiff alleged that a cell phone exploded in his hand, causing burns and requiring surgery. Plaintiff filed suit and demanded millions, asserting causes of action for strict products liability, negligence and breach of an implied warranty claim. Karen aggressively and extensively deposed both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s expert in this matter. I-Che prepared a detailed brief with additional affidavits in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with the assistance of Gregg. Based on the deposition testimony of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s experts, and filed briefs, the Court granted Defendant’s motion. In summary, the Court agreed that Plaintiff’s case hinged on their expert. While the Court found the expert qualified given his extensive experience as an engineer, the Court deemed his opinions unreliable, particularly his failure to explain the methodology he employed to determine the manufacturing defect existed when the phone left Defendant’s possession, including a failure to rule out tampering. The Court further determined that Plaintiff’s negligence claim suffered from the same deficiency as, and was subsumed by, his strict product liability claim. Moreover, the Court noted Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that horizontal privity exists between him and defendant. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim as well.

Karen L. Bashor and Gregg A. Tatarka