Contact Us

Wendy S. Dowse

Wendy_KP1_6530-Edit-200x300 Wendy S. Dowse Lawyer Palm Springs | Orange CountyWendy S. Dowse

Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP
1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way,
Palm Springs, CA 92262

Telephone: 760-322-2275

Wendy S. Dowse is a litigator and associate with Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP.  Wendy began her legal career in New York City and spent more than six years there before moving to California in 2008.  Wendy’s practice encompasses a wide variety of matters, including real estate, product liability, class actions, and commercial cases.  She has represented clients in the hospitality, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, and entertainment industries.


  • Rick v. Wyeth, Inc., 662 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2011), decided an issue lying “at the intersection of three complex areas of the law, full faith and credit, diversity jurisdiction and claim preclusion.” Disagreeing with the Second Circuit’s interpretation of New York law, the Eighth Circuit held that a New York state court’s prior grant of summary judgment dismissing appellants’ claims as time-barred precluded assertion of the same claims in federal court.
  • DeBoard v. Wyeth, Inc., 28 A.3d 1245 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011), affirmed summary judgment in favor of Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC (“Upjohn”) under the New Jersey Products Liability Act, holding that Upjohn’s warnings were adequate as a matter of law. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to rebut the Act’s presumption that drug labeling approved by FDA provides an adequate warning, even though use of Upjohn’s drug was “off label.”
  • In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig. (Scroggin v. Wyeth), 586 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 2009), held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to warrant punitive damages against Upjohn.
  • In re Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc., 864 N.Y.S.2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2008), involved a petition to fix the fair value of shares of The New York & Harlem Railroad Company, which owned Grand Central Terminal and had a unique history dating back to the nineteenth century.
  • Neville v. Martin, 815 N.Y.S.2d 91 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2006), affirmed an order granting a hotly-contested petition to dissolve a closely-held corporation.
  • JRK Franklin, LLC v. 164 East 87th Street, LLC, 812 N.Y.S.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2006), reversed summary judgment in a case involving a boutique hotel’s alleged lease violation.
  • Mercado v. Warner-Lambert Co., 106 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied), affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial claiming juror misconduct.
  • Commonwealth v. Cosby, No. 46-CR-0003932-2016 (Montgomery County Ct. Comm. Pleas 2017), denied Commonwealth’s motion to introduce testimony of thirteen prior accusers, except as to a single accuser.
  • Cipriano v. Schwartzman, No. BC594642 (LASC 2016), sustained demurrer in case seeking to set aside settlement agreement based on fraud in the inducement.
  • Malasig v. Hilton Waikoloa, L.L.C., No. 12-1-7 K (Haw. Cir. Ct. 2015), granted summary judgment in employee class action involving interpretation of Hawaii’s service charge statute.
  • In re Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA Omega-3 Mktg. & Sales Practice Litig., MDL No. 2324 (S.D. Fla. 2014), successfully excluded plaintiffs’ expert nutritional neuroscientist in MDL involving nine putative consumer class actions.
  • In re Will of Eugene F. Martin, Jr. (Surr. Ct. N.Y. County 2007), successfully opposed a motion to reopen probate challenging decedent’s testamentary capacity.
  • In re Rezulin Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1348 (S.D.N.Y.).
    • 2005 WL 1105067 (2005), granted motion for a Lone Pine Order requiring all MDL plaintiffs to produce case-specific expert reports.
    • 223 F.R.D. 109 (2004), granted motion to dismiss several hundred plaintiffs for failure to provide discovery and issued injunction against re-filing under the All Writs Act.
    • 2004 WL 2029404 (2004), granted summary judgment on the ground that warnings regarding certain side effects were adequate as a matter of law.
    • 309 F. Supp. 2d 531 (2004), granted motion to exclude several categories of expert testimony.


  • “State-Law Design-Defect Claims Against Generic Drug Manufacturers Are Preempted,” Product Liability Law & Strategy (Oct. 2013).
  • “Retroactivity and the Medical Device Safety Act,” Law360 (Apr. 2009).
  • “Recent Decision Provides Guidance on Admissibility of Expert Testimony.” Product Liability Law & Strategy (Dec. 2004).


  • Boston University School of Law (J.D., cum laude 2001).
  • Tufts University (B.A., cum laude 1997).


  • California
  • New York
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California
  • United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York

Palm Springs

Orange County

San Diego


New York

Palm Springs
1800 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Orange County
650 Town Center Drive, Ste. 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
San Diego
2240 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
103 Carnegie Center Blvd., Ste. 101
Princeton, NJ 08540
New York
405 Lexington Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York