Overview
Sarah Weiner is a litigation associate in the Washington, D.C., office of Munger, Tolles & Olson who has a varied litigation practice involving representations at both the trial and appellate levels of federal and state courts.
Her experience includes advising on copyright and trademark issues, defending the interests of the cryptocurrency and DeFi industries before the courts and regulators and litigating high-stakes appeals. Sarah also has an active pro bono practice, including representing incarcerated individuals before the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
Sarah previously served as an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff.
At Yale Law School, Sarah worked as an articles and essays editor for the Yale Law Journal.
Capabilities
Practices
Experience
Litigation
Grayscale Investments, LLC, in securing a significant appellate victory when the D.C. Circuit vacated an SEC order denying Grayscale’s bid to launch the first spot bitcoin exchange-traded product (ETP) in the U.S.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in a lawsuit brought by Ronald Hilton (of the Hilton hotelier family), arising from William Barron Hilton’s inheritance of millions of shares of Hilton Hotels Corporation stock from deceased hotel magnate Conrad Hilton. Following four rounds of successful demurrers, the court held that the claims are time-barred and dismissed the case in its entirety with prejudice, a decision which the California Court of Appeal affirmed on appeal.
California cardrooms in defending against an industry-wide attack on player-dealer games under a novel — and thus far untested — special-interest statute creating a one-time cause of action to sue in California courts.
The World Bank in securing the D.C. Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s ruling that the Bank enjoyed from immunity from a suit attempting to satisfy plaintiffs’ judgment against an unrelated, third-party defendant by executing against the Bank’s own funds.
A corporate defendant in successfully defending on appeal the trial court’s ruling that certain claimants were not entitled to criminal restitution as a matter of law.