Edward J. Dumoulin
Associate / Chicago

P: 312-881-5945
F: 312-380-7027

Download vcard for Edward J. Dumoulin edumoulin@goldmanismail.com

Ed represents clients in high-stakes civil cases across a wide variety of practice areas including product liability, antitrust, and complex commercial litigation. His work has included briefing and arguing significant motions, developing litigation strategy, and serving on trial teams. Beyond litigating in trial courts nationwide, Ed maintains an active appellate practice that has included handling appeals in the Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and the United States Supreme Court. Ed particularly takes pride in finding creative solutions to challenging legal problems, and his work has led to victories in dozens of cases.

Ed joined Goldman Ismail after clerking in the federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels and practicing with another leading national law firm. He graduated cum laude from Harvard College with his bachelor’s degree, earned a master’s degree from the University of Cambridge, and obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School.

  • Gadolinium Retention Contrast Dye Litigation

    Represent Bayer in nationwide litigation regarding Bayer’s Magnevist® contrast dye. Plaintiffs claim that they developed a variety of injuries as a result of retaining gadolinium in their bodies following use of Bayer’s gadolinium-based contrast agent Magnevist® and other contrast agents during MRI procedures. Secured dozens of voluntary dismissals, in addition to court-ordered dismissals, over the course of the litigation.

    • In re Gadolinium-Based Products Liability Litigation (J.P.M.L.) Defeated plaintiffs’ petition to create an MDL before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
    • Fischer v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Ariz.) In bellwether cases, won exclusion of plaintiffs’ four general causation experts in an 85-page opinion followed by full summary judgment. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
    • Sabol v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) Argued and won motion to dismiss based on a novel preemption theory resulting in published opinion.
    • McGrath v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) Won motion to dismiss based on a novel preemption theory resulting in a widely-cited published opinion.
    • Combs v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (N.D. Ohio) Won motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds based on plaintiff’s statements at FDA conference unearthed through online research.
    • Klein v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Nev.) Won motion to dismiss based on a novel preemption theory not previously accepted by any district court in the Ninth Circuit.
    • Goodell v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Mass.) Won motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction over in-state plaintiff’s claims as well as preemption.
    Rowley v. AbbVie, Inc.

    Represented AbbVie in a MDL bellwether trial where the plaintiff claimed AndroGel caused his deep vein thrombosis. The jury returned a complete defense verdict for AbbVie in June 2018.

    • Associate, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP
    • Associate, Mayer Brown LLP
    • Harvard Law School (J.D.)
      • John M. Olin Fellowship in Law and Economics
    • University of Cambridge (M. Phil., Political Thought and Intellectual History)
    • Harvard College (A.B., Government, cum laude)
      • Boylston Prize for Elocution
      • Philo Sherman Bennett Prize for senior thesis
    • Honorable Rosemary S. Pooler, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr., United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
  • Jennifer Greenblatt, Edward Dumoulin, Personal Jurisdiction: Clinical Trial Contacts after BMS, ABA Section of Litigation

    • Selected by Super Lawyers as an Illinois Rising Star (2019-2022)
    • State of Illinois
    • District of Columbia
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit