University of San Diego, School of Law – 2005
Princeton University – 2000
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Ms. Kim focuses on antitrust, securities, and intellectual property litigation. She has litigated multi-district class actions in the technology, internet commerce, and pharmaceutical sectors as well as regulatory investigations by the Department of Justice. Prior to joining MoginRubin LLP, Ms. Kim was a staff attorney with a leading New York-based plaintiff securities litigation firm where she concentrated her practice on written and oral discovery. Ms. Kim is an active member of the California State Bar, the San Diego County Bar Association, and the Lawyers Club of San Diego. She is the current Vice President of the Korean American Bar Association of San Diego, serves on the board of the Princeton Club of San Diego, and is a lifelong member of Mensa. She earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law and A.B. from Princeton University.
In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-mc-01404 (D.D.C.), representing plaintiffs in an action alleging a conspiracy by the four largest commercial air passenger carriers in the United States to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services within the United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3).
In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation – Bearings, No. 2:12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), representing putative class of direct purchasers alleging a price-fixing conspiracy against manufacturers of automotive bearings, windshield wiper systems, occupant safety systems, and various other automotive parts, in a multidistrict litigation including more than 40 coordinated class actions that have led to a total recovery to date of more than $1 billion.
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 1-13-CV-07789 (S.D.N.Y.), representing a putative class of participants in the foreign exchange market alleging that Defendants, some of the largest financial institutions, conspired to fix prices by manipulating bid/ask spreads and key global benchmark rates in the foreign exchange (“FX”) market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§1, 3) and Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§1.