Arjun D. Shah


  • Arjun D. Shah
  • Phone: +1 973 424 2016

    Import to Address Book

  • Duane Morris LLP
    200 Campus Drive, Suite 300
    Florham Park, NJ 07932-1007

Arjun Shah practices in the area of litigation, with substantial experience in broad and diverse areas of the law, including environmental liability and remediation, consumer litigation, class actions and complex commercial disputes. He has represented a great variety of corporate and individual clients in all stages of litigation in both federal and state courts.

Mr. Shah is a 2012 graduate of Emory University School of Law, where he was managing editor of the Emory International Law Review, and a cum laude graduate of Rutgers University.


  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)


  • Emory University School of Law, J.D., 2012
    - Managing Editor, Emory International Law Review
  • Rutgers University, B.A., cum laude, 2009


  • Duane Morris LLP
    - Associate, 2022-present
  • Schlanger Law Group LLP
    - Attorney, 2021-2022
  • Herold Law, PA
    - Associate, 2017-2020
  • Sherman Wells Sylvester & Stamelman LLP
    - Associate, 2014-2016
  • Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP
    - Associate, 2012-2014

Selected Publications

  • "Is Bollywood Unlawfully Copying Hollywood? Why? What has Been Done About It? And How Can It Be Stopped?," 26 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 449, 2012

Representative Matters

  • Represented a Fortune 500 energy company, convincing the Eastern District of New York to reconsider a prior decision and grant summary judgment on a breach of contract claim against a competing energy company. The parties entered into an agreement whereby Defendant was obligated to have the capacity to receive, store, and transfer lubricant base oils; despite repeatedly acknowledging that it could accept a particular base oil, Defendant refused to do so unless the client entered into unrelated agreements. Defendant then claimed the need to substantially modify its facility to accept the product. The court initially denied summary judgment finding the facility modification a material issue of fact; on a motion for reconsideration, the Court reversed its decision finding it had overlooked a provision obligating Defendant to make any modifications necessary to enable storage. The case will proceed to trial to determine damages.