Skip to content
DWT logo
People Services Insights
About Offices Careers
Search
People
Services
Insights
About
Offices
Careers
Search
Desktop Image: Caldwell, Adam S.
Mobile Image: Caldwell, Adam S.

Adam S. Caldwell

Partner

T 202.973.4252 Washington, D.C.
  •  

Download vCard Download bio Print this page
Share

Adam Caldwell represents clients in complex litigation and appeals in federal and state courts, with an emphasis on defending consumer claims and class actions. In over twenty years of practice he has defended a wide variety of matters, including unfair and deceptive acts and practices claims; privacy claims; complex contract disputes; employment claims including harassment and age discrimination; and claims against local and state governments and regulators.

Adam represents clients from a variety of industries, including cable, private equity, media, retail, direct marketing, and hospitality, as well as high net worth individuals.

Major national broadcasting and cable company

Defended cable operator in putative state class action alleging trespass in relation to the cable operator’s placement of its facilities, resulting in favorable settlement. (S.C. 2019)

Breach of contract for copyright royalties for national cable service provider

Obtained judgment for cable operator against broadcaster for breach of agreement to indemnify operator for payment of copyright royalties. Executed judgment through court ordered receivership and sale of station assets. (S.D.W.VA. and 4th Cir., 2014)

Scali v Blackstreet Capital Management, LLC; Heidbrink v. Blackstreet Capital Management, LLC

Defended Blackstreet Capital Management against overtime wage claims under the FLSA in two collective actions. Obtained dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. (S.D. Fla., 2014)

Hodsdon v. Bright House Networks, LLC

Successfully defended BHN in putative class action alleging improper retention of customer data, including enforcement of client’s arbitration provision and class action waiver. (E.D. Cal., 2013)

Valentine v. Nebuad

Obtained dismissal on lack of jurisdiction, on behalf of internet service provider Bresnan Communications in federal privacy lawsuit challenging the use of deep-packet inspection technology (2009). Won dismissal of ECPA claims in sister-case in Montana and in the 9th Circuit enforcing arbitration. (N.D. Cal. 2011; 9th Cir. 2013)
Searching...

Admitted to Practice

  • District of Columbia, 1995
  • Maryland, 1993
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Education

  • J.D., The George Washington University Law School, 1993, with honors
    • Member, Law Review
  • B.A., International Affairs, History, Lafayette College, 1988

Memberships & Affiliations

    • Federal Communications Bar Association
    • District of Columbia Bar Association
    • Volunteer, Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

Background

    • Partner, Cole, Raywid & Braverman LLP, Washington, D.C.
    • Editor-in-Chief, Commercial Protection Reporting Service, 1991-1993
Searching...
Publications
2019
News
Assisting the Legal Clinic for the Homeless Read More
Insights
12.03.12
Advisories
Communications
Program Access Update: Sunset of Exclusive Program Contract Prohibition Read More
Insights
04.29.11
Advisories
Communications
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Enforcing Class Action Waivers in Consumer Contracts Read More
Insights
10.05.10
Advisories
Communications
Broadband Stimulus Expertise Read More
Your search returned no results. Please try another search or remove search criteria.
DWT logo
©1996-2025 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Not intended as legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Media Kit Affiliations Legal notices
Privacy policy Employees DWT Collaborate EEO

SUBSCRIBE
©1996-2025 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Not intended as legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.