Verified profile

Nancy Nguyen Sims

Partner at Baker McKenzie LLP

Nancy Nguyen Sims's profile photo
LocationLos AngelesCalifornia, United States
Current rolePartnerBaker & McKenzie LLP · since Apr 2022
Government service1yrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

About

Nancy is a partner in our Firm's North America Litigation and Government Enforcement Group and is based in our Los Angeles office.

Roles

Apr 2022–Present
Current role

Partner

Baker & McKenzie LLP

Los Angeles, California

AttorneyCivil LitigationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Investigations

Nancy is a commercial litigator focusing on class actions, complex business disputes, and investigations. Her previous experience includes representing clients in commercial matters based on contract claims, unfair competition, false advertising, privacy law violations, fraud and related business torts in both court litigation and arbitration. In particular, Nancy's litigation practice involves defending class actions in the consumer, franchise, privacy, insurance, and labor and employment spaces. Nancy also has significant experience representing franchisors in disputes with franchisees involving joint employer allegations, misclassification claims, and contract claims. She has represented clients in putative class actions and other litigation with a combined exposure of over USD 1 billion.

In addition, Nancy also has extensive experience conducting corporate internal investigations and government investigations, including those implicating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and UK Bribery Act.

Nancy is co-chair of the Firm’s Class Actions Group. She also serves as co-hiring partner for the West Coast offices, as well as a member of the Firm’s North America Inclusion Diversity and Equity Committee.

Jul 2002–Apr 2022
Former role

Of Counsel

DLA Piper US LLP

AttorneyCivil LitigationAttorney AdvisorResearch
Oct 2001–Jul 2002
Former role

Associate Attorney

Crosby Heafey LLP (now Reed Smith)

AttorneyLegal Officers and PractitionersLegal
Jan 2000–Feb 2001
Former role

Judicial Extern

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

(appointed)

ResearchLegal Officers and PractitionersLegal

Judicial extern to the Honorable Steven Reinhardt.

Representative matters

Experience

September 2025

-On behalf of a nationwide franchisor, litigated the enforceability of an arbitration agreement to the United States Supreme Court. -Defended a Fortune 5 retailer in a USD 100 million dispute based on contract and fraud-based claims, resulting in a motion to dismiss for forum non-conveniens. -Defended a global franchisor of convenience stores in multiple actions involving joint employer allegations, successfully obtaining dismissals of actions. -Defend a global electronics manufacturer in multiple class actions for false advertising based of product labeling and specifications, including successfully enforcing an arbitration agreement against a consumer. -Defend companies across various industries in both class actions and individual actions alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). -Defended a national cleaning franchisor in a class action alleging wage and hour violations, unfair competition and false advertising, resulting in favorable settlement for the client. -Defend a multinational food company in multiple class actions for false advertising based on product labels. -Defended a major automobile insurance carrier in multiple class action lawsuits challenging its practice of relying on labor rate surveys and prevailed by obtaining an order denying class certification, which was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. -Defended a national homebuilder in a class action alleging unfair competition, false advertising and fraud claims based on purportedly improper advertising and mortgage practices, resulting in a successful motion to dismiss granted with prejudice and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. -Two of the largest US car rental companies in multiple consumer class actions alleging non-disclosure of certain fees assessed in connection with rentals in violation of unfair competition and false advertising laws. Prevailed on a demurrer sustained with prejudice, which was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. -Defended a national restaurant franchisor in a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the California Franchise Investment Law, breach of contract, and fraud. -Represented a global pharmaceutical company in multiple internal investigations across various jurisdictions in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

Publications & speeches

United States: Plaintiffs win a round in Video Privacy Protection Act bout before Second Circuit - Salazar vs. National Basketball Association

Baker McKenzie InsightPlus

November 2024

The recent surge in cases under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) underscores its critical role in addressing consumer privacy concerns in the digital age. The 1988 Act prohibits a “video tape service provider”, with certain exceptions, from disclosure of video rental or purchase records containing personally identifiable information of any “consumer”. The Second Circuit has recently held in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, that the federal statute is “no dinosaur” and is far from being outdated, regardless of how content consumption has evolved since the days of VHS tapes. “Our modem means of consuming content may be different, but the VPPA’s privacy protections remain as robust today as they were in 1988,” Judge Beth Robinson wrote. The court determined that by subscribing to the NBA newsletter and providing his personal information, Salazar fell within the VPPA’s broad definition of “consumer,” and was entitled to its protections against unauthorized disclosure of personal information.

Link

United States: California Court decision a reminder to review website privacy practices

Baker McKenzie InsightPlus

April 2024

In Esparza v. Kohl’s, Inc., Plaintiff brought a putative class action accusing Kohl’s of allowing a third party to unlawfully eavesdrop on him while he had a brief conversation with an agent on a chat feature on Kohl’s website. Kohl’s moved to dismiss all claims, but the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the motion only as to the claims for violation of the California Constitution and intrusion upon seclusion. The court allowed Plaintiff’s claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), to move forward. This decision is significant because it confirms that sharing electronic data with third-party applications or service providers without the website visitor’s consent creates a risk of lawsuits and potential liability for website defendants in states that require all parties to consent to interception of communications.

Link

Latest Developments in Class Certification

Bridgeport Legal Education

September 2022

Protecting the Privilege: Best Practices for Establishing & Maintaining In-House Attorney-Client Privilege

Association of Corporate Counsel

August 2022

Class Actions 2020: State vs. Federal Filing Considerations

Bridgeport Legal Education

September 2020

Consumer Class Action Litigation: Tips & Strategies for Your Firm in 2020 and Beyond

The Knowledge Group

September 2020

Dealing with FCPA and Other Investigations Under the New Normal

FDA News

June 2020