Elizabeth Crepps

Elizabeth J. Crepps is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Los Angeles office. Elizabeth’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation, including class actions, in the fields of false advertising, employment matters, contract disputes, ethical issues, fraud, business torts, and unfair trade practices. She also advises corporate clients on best practices, risk management strategies and general compliance in the food and beverage sectors.

Elizabeth also advises on numerous corporate and finance transactional matters.  She has advised clients on complex real estate finance transactions, joint ventures, and other transactions. She also has experience with negotiating and drafting numerous commercial contracts.

Elizabeth is active with pro bono matters, including in the areas of immigration, habeas corpus petitions, and contract negotiations. Elizabeth was an intern at the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Environmental Protection Division and an education law clinic. She joined the firm in 2012.

Education :

• Harvard Law School, JD
• California State University, BA, summa cum laude

Admissions :

• California
• US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• US District Court for the Central District of California
• US District Court for the Northern District of California
• US District Court for the Southern District of California

Experience :

• Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d –, 2016 WL 879673 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint.  Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law, was expressly preempted.