Our Results

The results listed below are trial verdicts and settlements we obtained for our clients.

The names of the parties in the settlements section have been omitted to protect client confidentiality. The trial verdicts are public record. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.

MULTIMILLION DOLLAR TRIAL VERDICTS

Grassilli v. Barr, et al.

Practice Area: Civil Rights.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. The Plaintiff claimed he was harassed by several California Highway Patrol officers after he filed a complaint against one of the officers. The Plaintiff also claimed the harassment, which continued for several years, ruined his business and caused him to suffer severe emotional distress.

The Defendant officers contended that they were merely enforcing the traffic laws and did not retaliate against Plaintiff.

Verdict: Plaintiff's verdict in the amount of $4,505,022.00 which included $4,000,000.00 in punitive damages. The trial court awarded an additional $825,000.00 in attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff. The verdict was reduced on appeal.

Salas v. Rodriguez, et al.

Practice Area: Business Litigation.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. The Plaintiff claimed he had purchased an Alberto's Mexican Restaurant from Defendants. Plaintiff claimed that after he had paid in full for the restaurant Defendants tried to take the restaurant away from Plaintiff and sell it to someone else.

Defendants claimed that they had leased the restaurant to Plaintiff and they were entitled to possession of the restaurant after the lease expired.

Verdict: Plaintiff's verdict in the amount of $3,975,000.00 which included $3,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

Havasu Lakeshore Investments, LLC v. Terry L. Fleming, Sr.

Practice Area: Business Litigation.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. The Plaintiff was a California LLC who claimed that Fleming Sr., a member of the LLC misappropriated an opportunity that belonged to the LLC. Fleming Sr. denied Plaintiff's allegations.

Verdict: Plaintiff's verdict in the amount of $3,634,034.00 which included $425,000.00 in punitive damages.

MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENTS

HOA v. Developer

Practice Area: Construction Defect.

Description: We represented a Homeowner Association who claimed the developer negligently constructed the building where the Association was located.

The Defendant Developer claimed that all worked was performed to industry standards.

Result: The case settled for $8,500,000.00 during trial.

Plaintiff v. Retail Store

Practice Area: Personal Injury

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff had his tires changed. Thereafter, he was driving his vehicle when one of the tires that had been changed came off the vehicle resulting in an accident. Expert investigation determined that the tire came off the vehicle because the lug nuts had not been properly secured. Plaintiff claimed he suffered severe injuries resulting in an inability to work and permanent physical damage.

The Defendant claimed that it was not negligent or the cause of the tires coming off the vehicle. The Defendant also claimed that plaintiff was exaggerating his injuries.

Result: The case settled for $3,250,000.00 one week before trial.

Plaintiff v. Alcohol Treatment Center

Practice Area: Professional Negligence.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff estate of an alcoholic who committed suicide hours after being released from a drug and alcohol treatment center.

The decedent husband had been placed in the drug and alcohol treatment center by his wife due to suicidal tendencies. The wife informed the treatment center of the husband's suicidal tendencies and asked that he receive psychological counseling while at the treatment center. The treatment center failed to provide the decedent husband with psychological counseling. The decedent husband left the treatment center, became intoxicated and killed himself.

The Defendant treatment center claimed that it was not negligent and did not fall below the standard of care in treating the decedent husband.

Result: The case settled for $3,250,000.00.

Plaintiff v. Massage Therapist

Practice Area: Personal Injury.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff received a massage. Thereafter, he began to experience tingling in his neck and shoulders. Plaintiff claimed he suffered injuries to his cervical spine resulting in permanent disability during the massage.

The Defendant claimed that it was not negligent and did not injure plaintiff.

Result: The case settled for $2,500,000.00.

Plaintiff v. Boat Owner

Practice Area: Personal Injury.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff was crushed between two boats when he attempted to cross from his boat to the Defendant's boat at sea. Plaintiff claimed the way Defendant was captaining his boat was the cause of his injury.

Defendant claimed that he was not negligent and plaintiff slipped during the transfer causing his own injury.

Result: The case settled for $2,500,000.00.

Plaintiff v. Infomercial Producer

Practice Area: Business Litigation.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff contracted to fund an infomercial in exchange for a percentage of the profit generated by infomercial sales. Plaintiff claimed that the infomercial producer did not pay what the contract required it to pay. Defendant claimed it had paid Plaintiff what it owed.

Result: The case settled for $2,000,000.00 after the first phase of a two phase arbitration.

Business Litigation

Sanchez v. Sanchez

Practice Area: Business Litigation.

Description: We represented the Defendants in this case. The Defendants were sued by their father in connection with a dispute regarding control of a family business. The father demanded $25,000,000.00 to settle the case.

The Defendants claimed that they had paid their father in full for the business.

Verdict: Defense verdict.

Armstrong Handyman, Inc. v. Ryan Peddycord, et al.

Practice Area: Business Litigation.

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. The Plaintiff claimed it provided a business plan to the Defendant after requiring him to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant then opened a competing business in violation of the terms of the Non Disclosure Agreement.

The Defendant admitted signing the Non Disclosure Agreement but claimed he did not use any of the information provided to him by the Plaintiff to operate the competing business.

Verdict: Plaintiff's verdict which included injunctive relief, an award of punitive damages and attorneys fees.

Terry Fleming, Jr. v. Victor Peloquin, et al.

Practice Area: Business Litigation.

Description: We represented the Defendant in this case. The Plaintiff claimed he and Defendant entered an agreement which allowed Plaintiff to exercise an option to covert ownership in an LLC to cash. Plaintiff claimed he properly exercised the option and that Defendant owed him more than $2,800,000.00.

The Defendant claimed that Plaintiff did not properly exercise the option and, as a result, the option expired.

Verdict: Defense verdict. After trial Defendant was awarded over $250,000 in attorney fees.

HOA LITIGATION

Bull V. San Diego Country Estates Association

Practice Area: HOA

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. The Plaintiff sued her HOA because it would not allow her to run as a candidate in an election for a seat on the Association Board of Directors.

The Defendant Association claimed it complied with the law and the election was valid.

Verdict: Plaintiff's verdict. The Court ordered the Association to conduct a new election where Plaintiff was allowed to run as a candidate. Plaintiff was elected to a seat on the Association Board of Directors in the Court ordered election. The Court awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs of suit.

Ward V. San Diego Country Estates Association

Practice Area: HOA

Description: We represented the Defendant Association in this case. Mr. Ward was a homeowner who ran for a seat on the Association Board of Directors. When he was not elected Mr. Ward filed suit to contest the validity of the election.

The Defendant Association claimed it complied with the law and the election was valid.

Verdict: Verdict for Defendant Association. The Court found the election was valid and awarded Defendant Association attorney fees and costs of suit.

Gallego V. Trellis Fifth Avenue Homeowners Association

Practice Area: HOA

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff claimed the Association refused to hold an election for the Association Board of Directors at a reasonable time. Other Association members formed an election committee which held an election which was not authorized by the Association Board of Directors. Plaintiff was elected to the Association Board of Directors in this election.

The Defendant Association claimed the unauthorized election was invalid and refused to allow Plaintiff to act as a member of the Association Board of Directors.

Verdict: The Court ruled that the unauthorized election was valid and confirmed Plaintiff's position on the Association Board of Directors.

Hall v. Arrowhead Lake Association

Practice Area: HOA

Description: We represented the Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff claimed the Association election violated the Association By-Laws.

The Defendant Association claimed the election was valid.

Verdict: The Court ruled that the election was invalid and ordered a new election.

CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENTS

Plaintiff Class Representative v. Employer

Practice Area: Wage and Hour Class Action.

Description: Represented a class of truck drivers who were not paid waiting time as required by law.

The Defendant admitted it did not pay the drivers waiting time but claimed certain exemptions in the law did not require it to do so.

Result: The case settled by the Defendant agreeing to pay the drivers the waiting time it had failed to pay and agreeing to continue to pay the drivers waiting time on a going forward basis.

Plaintiff Class Representative v. Tire Company

Practice Area: Consumer Class Action.

Description: Represented a class of people who purchased tire protection plans from Defendant Tire Company that were sold in violation of California law.

Defendant claimed the law did not govern the sale of tire protection plans.

Result: The case settled by the Tire Company agreeing to provide coupons to class members which entitled them a discount on future purchases and to no longer sell the illegal tire protection plan.