Main Menu
John Carriel
Senior Associate
Washington, DC
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 375
Washington DC 20006
TEL: (202) 899-4111
FAX: (612) 336-9100
{ mail }
{ print } Print PDF
{ vcard } vCard
Practice Areas
Bar and Court Admissions

John A. Carriel

John’s practice focuses on complex antitrust and financial litigation, including class action litigation relating to securities and cryptocurrencies. He has experience in many aspects of litigation, including pre-suit investigation, case initiation, pre-trial motion practice and hearings, discovery, class certification, settlement approval proceedings, and appellate proceedings.  He also serves as a member of the firm’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee and Technology Committee.

Prior to joining Zelle, John was an associate at a national securities plaintiffs’ class action law firm, where he represented clients in derivative lawsuits and class actions. During law school, he interned for the Enforcement and Investment Management Divisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Legal Division of the Consumer Financial Projection Bureau. In addition, he worked as a summer associate for a midsize business law firm in New York.

Representative Matters

Represents Freddie Mac and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for 38 Closed Banks in the LIBOR antitrust litigation. (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., No. 11-md-2262-NRB (S.D.N.Y.))

Represents United HealthCare Services, Inc. in three individual antitrust matters against the makers of more than 200 generic pharmaceutical drugs, alleging a widespread price-fixing and market allocation conspiracy; this matter has been consolidated with In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724. (United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00629-CMR (E.D. Pa.))  

Represents United HealthCare Services, Inc. in an individual antitrust matter against the manufacturers of the branded pharmaceutical drug, Xyrem, and its generic equivalents, alleging they entered into unlawful pay-for-delay and market share-allocation agreements to maintain artificially inflated supracompetitive prices of Xyrem for several years; this matter has been consolidated with In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2966. (United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., No. 5:21-cv-02710-RS (N.D. Cal.)).

Successfully argued before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Rensel v. Centra Tech, securing a significant victory when the Panel, in a published opinion, vacated the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification upon finding that both of the court’s alternative grounds for denying the motion (that it was untimely, and that the proposed class was not sufficiently ascertainable) were abuses of discretion. Rensel v. Centra Tech, Inc., 2 F.4th 1359 (11th Cir. 2021).  The Eleventh Circuit's opinion: (i) established the standard of review for trial courts considering the timeliness of a motion for class certification; (ii) reaffirmed that plaintiffs should typically be permitted discovery prior to moving for class certification; (iii) made clear that a district courts' failure to enter a scheduling order violates both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida; and (iv) further rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification adopted by other Circuits, including the Third Circuit. 

Represented investor class plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 12(a) and 15(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a company and its executives for allegedly conducting a fraudulent initial public offering (In re Longfin Corp. Securities Class Action Litigation, 18-cv-2977-DLC (S.D.N.Y.)).

Represented investor class plaintiffs asserting claims under 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a company and its executives for allegedly conducting a market manipulation scheme (Guyer v. MGT Capital Investments, Inc., 1:18-CV-09228-ER (S.D.N.Y)).

Articles & Presentations

"M-U-N-I: Evidencing the Inadequacies of the Municipal Securities Regulatory Framework," 1 BUS. ENTREPRENEURSHIP & TAX L. REV. 528 (2017)

Professional Affiliations

Pro Bono Activities


Named a Washington, DC “Rising Star” for 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 (Antitrust Litigation, Securities Litigation, and Class Action & Mass Torts) by Super Lawyers magazine. 

Named a member of 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll and 2021 Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll.

Back to Page