AttorneysAll Attorneys
Kyle A. Shamberg

Kyle A. Shamberg

Counsel Chicago, IL312.750.1592 kshamberg@litedepalma.comLegal Assistant: Carla DaSilva973.877.3831

Kyle A. Shamberg is a key member of Lite DePalma Greenberg’s litigation team in Chicago, where he provides effective representation to clients in a range of class action cases and in complex commercial litigation. In addition to his trial work, Kyle has successfully argued appeals and defended lower-court verdicts in federal and state appellate courts.

A keen legal strategist, Kyle is currently a member of the class action teams handling cases such as McCain et al. v. Rust-Oleum, a products liability class action involving defective deck resurfacing products; Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., representing customers whose personal financial information was stolen in a security breach involving P.F. Chang’s payment card processing system; Mednick v. Precor Inc., which involves defects in the heart-rate monitoring capabilities of Precor fitness machines; and Automotive Wire Harness Systems Antitrust Litigation, a multi-district antitrust class action involving allegations of illegal price fixing in the market for auto parts.

“The attorney-client relationship is a human relationship,” says Kyle. “My clients may not have been trained in the law, but that doesn’t mean that they are any less sophisticated when it comes to their business and personal objectives. Together, we create a legal strategy that can achieve their unique goals.”


Prior to joining Lite DePalma, Kyle was an associate at one of New York’s premier mass tort law firms, where he represented injured individuals and their families in state and federal court. Among other matters, Kyle served on the trial team in Assenzio v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., et al., resulting in a $190 million verdict for his clients — the largest consolidated asbestos exposure verdict in New York history. Kyle also obtained a multimillion-dollar verdict on behalf of his injured client in McCormick v. Anchor Packing Co., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He later successfully defended this verdict on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


Kyle is currently serving as the Chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s Class Action Committee for the 2017-18 year after serving as Vice-Chair the previous year.

While in law school, Kyle was executive editor of the Loyola Consumer Law Review and served as a judicial intern for Judge Ann Claire Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

After earning his law degree, magna cum laude, Kyle served a two-year term as a staff attorney in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

Kyle was named a Super Lawyers Rising Star for 2016 and 2017.

+ Read More

Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. et al., No. 190040/13 (N.Y. App. Div. February 5, 2015).  Lite DePalma Greenberg thwarted a defendant’s appeal in the case of a sheet metal worker who developed terminal cancer from toxic exposures during the original construction of the World Trade Center. After the trial court denied defendant Andal Corp.’s motion for summary judgment challenging the plaintiff’s exposure testimony as well as its own liability under a corporate successorship theory, Andal appealed.  After hearing briefing and argument from Kyle A. Shamberg, the New York Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling in all respects. 

LDG presses forward with data breach class action against P.F. Chang's.  To read more, click here.

Kyle Shamberg of LDG’s Chicago office was named to the 2017 list of “Illinois Rising Stars,” his second consecutive year of being selected.¹

Kyle A. Shamberg was quoted in an article in Law360 entitled “Treadmill Buyers Get Another Chance in False Ad Suit.” To read this article, discussing LDG’s successful bid to amend its claims in a class action against Precor, Inc. alleging that Precor misrepresented the accuracy of the touch sensor heart rate monitors on its treadmills, click here.

Kyle Shamberg of LDG’s Chicago office was named to the 2016 list of “Illinois Rising Stars,” his first year of being selected.¹

Kyle Shamberg was quoted in an article from KOMO TV News, “Free Samples Not Necessarily Free.” To read this article, click here.

¹The Super Lawyers List is issued by Thompson Reuters.  A description of the selection methodology can be found at  No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

August 30, 2018
Jurisdictionally or Via Rule 23: When are Multi-State Class Actions Appropriate Under Bristol-Myers Squibb?
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that "[a] corporation's continuous activity of some sorts within a state ... is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity." In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court employed a "straightforward application ... of settled principles of personal jurisdiction" in which specific jurisdiction over a claim can only be exercised if there is an "affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State."

April 12, 2018
"Consumer Class Actions in Defendants' Backyards: The Home-Field Advantage of Bristol-Myers Squibb"
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, decided in June 2017, the United States Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court's decision to allow the state to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over BMS in a mass tort insofar as it involved non-California-residents' claims (the claims of California residents were deemed subject to the court's specific jurisdiction). As Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent, this decision highly limited the ability of plaintiffs to consolidate their tort actions against a corporate defendant. As such, the Court effectively limited the reach of personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any state court in which the plaintiff's injury did not "arise out of or relate to" the defendant's contacts with that state.

December 28, 2017
A Short Digression on Oral Argument
For most non-members of the bar, the word "attorney" conjures an image of a skilled orator delivering a prescient and impassioned speech in the courtroom, a dramatic oration that swings the big case in the favor of his or her client. (Perhaps this is optimistic, and if your own visual is a placard of Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe, or a group of besuited bottom-of-the-ocean dwellers fulfilling the proverbial "good start," then please allow me this temporary indulgence). Perry Mason. Atticus Finch. Jack McCoy. In the real world, perhaps Johnny Cochran or, for the more historically inclined, Clarence Darrow or William Jennings Bryan.

September 7, 2017
Onward And Trumpward: The Future Of The Seventh Circuit
With the retirement of the renowned Richard A. Posner from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Saturday, the federal appellate court in Chicago now stands at a crossroads. Like former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Posner was appointed by a Republican President (Bush and Reagan, respectively) in the hopes that his judicial philosophy would exhibit a right-of-center bent. This was not always the case, with Judge Posner penning some of the most influential Circuit court decisions of the last few years, including a 2014 decision, Baskin v. Bogan, striking down Indiana and Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage.

May 18, 2017
The Pain Of "Just Saying No": The Law Is Not Always On Your Side
Last week, a potential client came to me with what she felt was a clear-cut mortgage fraud class action against one of the biggest banks in the world. After spending some time considering what she had told me and researching the point myself, I tended to agree that something was awry: there seemed to be indicators out there pointing to the fact that yes, this was happening and yes, it was happening to a lot of people. I determined that winning such a case would provide a tremendous societal benefit and would be significantly valuable to both my firm and to me personally. Immediately thereafter, I told her my firm could not take the case.

February 2, 2017
Consumers Confound ConAgra: The Ninth Circuit Follows the Trend on Administrative Feasibility
In a nice win for consumers, the Ninth Circuit kicked off the new year by issuing its ruling in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs the prosecution of class action lawsuits, does not require plaintiffs to establish an "administratively feasible" means of identifying putative class members for purposes of class certification. The decision not only improves the chances of a consumer class action being certified in the Ninth Circuit, it represents yet another Circuit Court rejection of the onerous administrative feasibility requirement laid out by the Third Circuit in rulings like Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013), and Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., No. 14-3050, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6190 (3d Cir. April 16, 2015).

October 20, 2016
The Ostrich And The Telemarketer, Or Why You Still Get So Many Spam Calls
Picture it: after a long day of work you come home hungry and tired to the smell of a delicious dish cooking in the oven. You pour yourself a glass of your favorite beverage, sit down at the table and get ready to dig in when the phone rings. You get up to answer and when you do you hear a synthetic, slightly creepy voice telling you you've been selected to win a very special prize, or gauging your interest in purchasing a medical alert device, or a free cruise, or etc. etc. etc. After either immediately hanging up or spending some time chewing out the person on the line – that is, if you ever even get to a real person – you come back to your (possibly cold) meal bothered by the annoyance and intrusion on your privacy.

July 14, 2016
Click-Wraps, Browse-Wraps And Arb Traps: What Rights Are You Giving Up When You Purchase Products Or Services Online?
If you've ever bought a product or signed up for a service online (and, given the fact that you're reading this blog post right now and/or have not been living under a rock for the last decade, you probably have) you've almost certainly bound yourself to terms and conditions you never read and in all likelihood never even knew existed.

April 7, 2016
Show Me The Money! "Pick-Off" Attempts In The Wake Of Campbell-Ewald
While civil lawsuits can involve all sorts of different topics (employment discrimination, personal injury, a lease between landlord and tenant, copyright infringement, or a defective product, to name only a few), at heart they are all about the same thing: the plaintiff believes she has been wronged in some way by the defendant and is seeking redress from the court. Most often, this redress takes the form of money damages. Let's say a plaintiff is injured in a car accident by the negligent defendant and files a suit asking for $100,000 in damages. If the next day that defendant offers to write the plaintiff a check for the $100,000, that should bring the dispute to an end, right?

December 31, 2015
Class Action Basics: What You Need To Know To Protect And Preserve Your Rights
I often receive phone calls from people who have read or heard about a class action our firm is pursuing and are curious about whether the case applies to them and what they need to do to get involved. I find that while most of these people – usually consumers who have purchased a defective or falsely advertised product, or have had their personal information compromised in a data breach – are familiar with the concept of what a class action lawsuit is (Erin Brokovich anyone?) they have a number of questions about how they actually work. Am I member of the class? Do I need to provide documents or other evidence? How can I recover if there's a settlement or judgment in the case? For those of you who have these same questions, here's a brief crash course in class actions that can help you understand the basics.

October 1, 2015
Looking Out For the Little Claim: Mullins v. Direct Digital and Consumer Class Actions
Consumers seeking to pursue small-individual, large-aggregate class actions have been confronted time and again with the dreaded "A" word: Ascertainability. Not that the word itself is imposing or even unfair; all it means is that, for a class action to be appropriate, there needs to be a reasonable way of figuring out who fits within the definition of the class and who doesn't based on some sort of objective criteria. For example, "people who purchased Product X between January 2011 and January 2014" would work, whereas "people who think Product X is really cool" would not. Seems fairly straightforward, right?

April 16, 2015
One For You, Nineteen for Thieves: Data Breaches and Federal Tax Fraud
The close of tax season is finally upon us, bringing with it relief for the last-minute filer, excitement for the unexpectedly-large-refund recipient, and a renewed sense of freedom for the seasonal tax preparer released back into the world to once again enjoy the sights and sounds of civilization. But for another group of people, tax season will drag on indefinitely as they spend hours on the telephone with the IRS, fill out mounds of paperwork, and hope against hope to eventually get the refund they were counting on. These people are the victims of tax fraud, in many instances as a direct result of having their personal information stolen in a data security breach.

+ Read More