Winning a $10.1 Million Judgment in a Business Fraud
Case Arising Out of Diverted Pharmaceutical Products

Only four months before trial, the Firm was retained by a pharmaceutical company that had been defrauded by a grey-market diverter working through a front entity in New Zealand.  While the former attorneys for the client had gathered some evidence, the case was far from ready for trial. Compounding the difficulties of the case was the fact that the client had previously sued the diverter, but had settled with him in reliance upon his assertion that he was an innocent victim of the New Zealand entity.  Under the settlement agreement, the diverter had returned some of the fraudulently diverted product.  However, because the client later discovered that the diverter was not an innocent victim, and was in fact the architect of the diversion scheme, the client did not pay for the product.  The diverter sued the client to enforce the settlement agreement.  In order to prevail, the trial team of Matthew Bures and Hillary Booth had to prove that the diverter was in fact working with the New Zealand entity, that the settlement agreement was induced by fraud, and that the fraudulent diversion of less than $300,000 worth of product caused millions of dollars in damages to the client.  Following a lengthy court trial, the Judge ruled that the settlement agreement could not be enforced, found in our client's favor on all four causes of action alleged in the cross-complaint, and awarded over $10 million in damages, including $2 million in punitive damages, plus attorneys' fees to our client.  Prior to trial, the diverter refused to offer any amount in settlement and insisted that the client pay him. 

We congratulate the entire team including John Lawrence, who provided wisdom and guidance, our tireless associate Shirin Kiaei, and our paralegal Edwin Letcher.  The decision has already caught the attention of the legal press and is being reported on Verdict Search.  In addition, trade publications, like the Drug Store News, have published articles regarding the decision.

Winning a $24.2 Million Verdict – The Highest Ever Awarded in California and No. 81 in the Nation in Favor of an Individual on a Disability Related Claim

Though we regularly handle plaintiff cases on behalf of companies, we rarely handle plaintiff cases on behalf of individuals.  Thus, it was not the typical case when we decided to represent a cardiac surgeon – the son of a lawyer whom we know – in a wrongful termination action against a hospital.  In any event, we are proud of the trial work and the extraordinary result we obtained.  Following a five and a half week trial in Yuba County, City of Marysville, John Lawrence and Josh Levine prevailed on all causes of action against the hospital, with the jury awarding our client $14.2 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages – the largest verdict of its type in California to date.  The jury unanimously found that Fremont-Rideout Medical Group had improperly terminated the doctor in retaliation for his advocating patients’ rights and also that he was discriminated against because of a disability.  The jury rejected the hospital's arguments that the termination of the doctor was justified by his conduct and that the doctor had made material misrepresentations on his application.  The highest settlement offer made by the Hospital prior to trial was $5,000. 

Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Levine were honored to accept awards in December, 2006, when the verdict was recognized by California trial lawyers as the Outstanding Verdict of 2006.  The verdict was included as one of the National Law Journal's top 100 verdicts in the nation for 2006, and was recognized by The Daily Journal as the seventh highest California jury verdict that year.  The case is now pending on appeal before the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. 

Successfully Maneuvering a Complex Environmental Matter through Trial

Complex environmental cases rarely proceed to actual trial; however, Richard Dongell, Tom Vandenburg and Josh Levine conducted the trial of a complex environmental case in San Bernardino County involving a dispute between the Firm’s client, a large manufacturer, and its former subsidiary (now controlled by different owners) over responsibility to clean up historic contamination.  Prior to trial, the Firm first eliminated a $1.4 million breach of contract claim against our client by summary adjudication motion.  On the morning of the first day of trial, the former subsidiary offered to pay $400,000 to settle.  Our client declined this offer and proceeded to trial.  After eight days of trial, however, the former subsidiary agreed to pay $1.35 million, an amount well within the range for which our client was seeking to recover, and the parties settled.  Coupled with the breach of contract victory, this resulted in a 2.75 million swing in our client’s favor.

Protecting the Business of a Transportation Company Critically Threatened by Regulatory Action

Led by Hillary Booth, the Firm represented a waste hauling business in an administrative case brought by the California Department of Motor Vehicles attempting to revoke the waste hauler’s Motor Carrier Permit after it received an “Unsatisfactory” rating by the California Highway Patrol.  Through a companion Superior Court proceeding initiated by the Firm, we obtained a temporary restraining order against the DMV, preventing it from revoking the permit during the proceedings. Through cross-examination of the CHP inspector and expert testimony, we established that the vehicle inspections had not been done properly, that the waste hauler did not present a danger to the public, and that the permit should not be revoked.   

Upholding a Decedent's Testamentary Dispositions

Led by John Lawrence, along with Jason Booth and Shaune Arnold, the Firm took over from former counsel the representation of a named heir and designated executor Harold Register after an unfortunate Superior Court trial result awarding a spousal half-share of the decedent's substantial estate to a purported "putative" spouse who claimed a Mexican marriage ceremony in 1971.  The trial court also refused to grant the testator’s appointment of the heir as executor of his estate.  Developing and applying a theory of "judicial estoppel," the Firm convinced the Court of Appeal to hold the alleged spouse to prior sworn statements that she was unmarried, made both in a 1973 probate action and in County Recorder documents.  The Court of Appeal upheld the decedent's will, and reversed the balance of the trial court's ruling in its entirety, dismissing the alleged spouse's claims, allowing the decedent's testamentary dispositions to be made as willed, ordering the appointment of our client as Executor, and also awarding costs to the Firm's client.  The alleged spouse's petition to the California Supreme Court was summarily denied.