Jennifer A. Guidea


  • Office Contact Info
  • Biography

    Jennifer A. Guidea handles various complex disputes, including breach of contract claims, consumer fraud claims, and professional liability claims against physicians, health care providers and hospitals. She also represents franchisors in litigation regarding unfair competition, trademark infringement, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and other matters. Jennifer has litigated before state and federal courts, handling all aspects of matters from inception through resolution.

    Jennifer also defends complex product liability cases in state and federal courts. Jennifer has acted as national and local counsel for several international pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in both individual and multi-district litigations from the inception of the claims up to and including trial and/or settlement. She has also represented Fortune 500 manufacturers of industrial products and heavy machinery, aviation manufacturing clients and air carriers, consumer product manufacturers and asbestos clients in complex product liability litigation.  Most recently, Jennifer has begun to combine her legal skills and experience with her passion for equestrian sports, offering advice and representation to several equine-related businesses. 


    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern, Southern, and Northern Districts of New York
    • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • Practice Areas
  • Representative Experience

    Jennifer's experience includes:

    • Obtained dismissal of a class action complaint filed against Century 21 Real Estate LLC in the District of South Carolina.
    • Obtained dismissal of a putative class action against a franchisor client, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act, 12 U.S.C. sec. 2607(b)(“RESPA”), as well as claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Court held that there was no basis for the claims against the franchisor given the lack of specificity of the allegations in the complaint. Further, the Court determined that RESPA’s “safe harbor” provision, contained in Section 8(c), applied and precluded the claims against the franchisor.
  • Education


    J.D., cum laude, Boston University School of Law, 2000

    • Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, Executive Editor

    B.A., cum laude, Brown University, 1997