We are well known for handling complex, multi-party litigation in a wide variety of substantive areas and are among the very best in California for handling high-stakes regulatory enforcement matters.  Much of our success is attributable to the fact that we do not hesitate to try cases to verdict or administrative ruling.

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 company located in New Zealand.  While the former attorneys for the client had gathered some evidence, the case was far from ready for trial. Compounding the difficulty of the case was the fact that the client had previously sued the diverter, and 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, when the client later discovered that the diverter was not an innocent victim, but 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, we 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 our client over $10 million in damages, including $2 million in punitive damages.  Prior to trial, the diverter had refused to offer any amount in settlement, insisting that the client pay him.

The Firm then moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs so that the client would be fully compensated for the loss it suffered.  We argued that our client was entitled to such an award because we defeated the plaintiff’s attempt to enforce a contract that contained a clause providing for the recovery of attorneys’ fees.  The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that the fees were unreasonable, and that the costs incurred were not recoverable.  The Court agreed with our position, and awarded an additional $860,000 to our client. 

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. 

Matt Bures and Hillary Booth led the trial team which included John Lawrence and Shirin Kiaei. 

Successfully Representing a Northern California City in a High-Stakes Toxic Tort Lawsuit Initiated by Thirty-Two Plaintiffs and Organized by Erin Brockovich

Richard Dongell led the Firm’s trial team (including Tom Vandenburg, Mike Gallagher, and Paul Rasmussen) in successfully representing a Northern California City sued by 32 plaintiffs in a case personally organized by Erin Brockovich.  The suit alleged that the City caused or contributed to PCE and TCE contamination in groundwater from which the plaintiffs’ families drew their drinking water.  Plaintiffs alleged numerous personal injury claims, including microcephaly and lissencephaly.  Plaintiffs had been making collective settlement demands in the $30 to $50 million range. But following the Court’s granting of our partial motion for summary judgment, and faced with the remaining deficiencies in plaintiffs’ case that we addressed in our motions in limine, plaintiffs’ counsel so substantially reduced their demand on the eve of trial that the City was able and pleased to settle the entire case for $1.5 million. 

Successfully Defending Executives in a $10 Million Business Fraud Case 

The Firm represented several principals of a failed record company which had a distribution agreement with EMI.  The principals included successful entrepreneurs and a well-known music promoter and producer, having been involved in numerous gold record promotions and productions.  They were sued by a disgruntled investor who sought to recover over $10 million.  Following a six-week trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Munoz, our trial team, composed of John Lawrence, Matthew Bures, and Jason Booth, obtained a complete defense judgment. 

Capping off a Major Trial Victory, Appellate Proceedings, Successful Petition for California Supreme Court Review, and Even Intervention by Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature

Richard Dongell led the Firm’s trial team (including Josh Levine and Chris Johnson) in representing one of the nation’s leading shopping center developers in connection with litigation brought by a consumer group challenging the approval of a land exchange underlying the development of the Pike, a major waterfront development in the City of Long Beach.  After the Firm achieved a trial victory, this victory was reversed on appeal.  Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court of California granted our petition to review the appellate court decision.

During the pendency of the Supreme Court’s review, the legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed a law explicitly authorizing the type of land exchanges being challenged, thus rendering the appeal moot.  The consumer group nonetheless attempted to claim victory based on these developments, and filed a motion in the trial court seeking over a million dollars in attorneys’ fees.  We successfully defeated this motion by demonstrating to the Court that the consumer group had not provided a “substantial benefit” to the public, as the primary effect of the litigation was the passage of legislation that the consumer group had opposed.  As such, the group was awarded nothing in their suit.

Winning a $24.2 Million Verdict – The Seventh Highest Awarded in California in 2006

John Lawrence and Joshua Levine were successful in bringing in a 24.2 million verdict in favor of a medical corporation and its principal in a hard-fought and complicated breach of contract case against a Northern California Hospital Group.  Following a five and a half week trial in Yuba County, City of Marysville, our client prevailed on all causes of action against the Hospital Group, with the jury awarding our clients $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 breached the contract with our clients, and otherwise acted improperly in terminating the relationship.  The jury rejected the Hospital Group's arguments that the termination of the contract and related privileges was justified.  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.

Successfully Challenging Toxic Tort Complaint Brought by 195 Plaintiffs

Led by Jason Booth, the Firm defeated for the second time a complaint alleging undefined injuries arising out of the 195 plaintiffs’ former employment at a Price Pfister manufacturing plant. The original dismissal, based upon a misjoinder of the parties, was reversed by the Court of Appeal.  Thereafter, the Court sustained our demurrer to the entire complaint based upon the statute of limitations, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts necessary for an extension of the statute of limitations based upon a delayed accrual.  The Court also struck the claims brought by 140 of the plaintiffs as having been brought without leave of court. 

While plaintiffs were given leave to amend and to seek reinstatement as parties to the action, we are optimistic that the complaint will ultimately be dismissed without its clients, or the other defendants, ever having to file an answer.

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

The Firm, through Hillary Booth, 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.

Obtaining a Complete Victory Without Proceeding to Trial

The Firm, through Michael Gallagher, represented a Northern California public entity that was sued by a plaintiff who was injured during a privately hosted performance on public property.  Despite the severity of plaintiff’s injuries and the contentious nature of the case, the Firm successfully obtained a voluntary dismissal from the plaintiff in exchange for a waiver of costs.  The plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal was directly motivated by our pending summary judgment motion as well as our clients’ refusal to settle and insistence to proceed to trial.  At trial, we were prepared to establish that the injuries were caused by plaintiff’s sole negligence.