|
Following a one day binding arbitration, Darren W. Epps obtained a favorable
award for an automobile dealer in a wrongful termination claim brought by a
discharged employee. The employee claimed he was discharged in violation of
public policy for internally reporting questionable deals between the owners
two dealerships. The Arbitrator ruled that the automobile dealer's termination
of the employee was valid and did not violate public policy.
In a $100 Million class action product liability lawsuit, Wendy L. Hillger
secured Dismissals for her clients without having to pay any money in
settlement. The plaintiff class members sued the product manufacturer for
alleged defects in the roof shingles. The fiber cement roofing product
harmed the felt underlayment, allowed water leaks and unsightly moss growths.
The product was installed in over 30,000 California homes during a 15 year
period. The Court in Contra Costa County thus certified the lawsuit as a
class action. In turn, the product manufacturer filed a Cross-complaint
against over 900 California roofing companies. The Court assigned Ms. Hillger to act as a liaison between all of the roofers. As such, Ms. Hillger and
Mr. Fotouhi asserted that the alleged roof installation issues were not
the cause of plaintiffs' harm. The manufacturer agreed, and the clients were granted Request for Dismissals months prior to trial. The
Dismissals allowed the clients to avoid defense costs for the expected
three month long trial.
As a result of a one day bench trial, Michael J. Gilroy obtained a
determination from the court that no express indemnity was owed by its
plastering subcontractor to the general contractor for work performed
on a private residence in Santa Barbara County in which $750,000 in
construction defects were alleged. The successful outcome of the trial
resulted in the general contractor settling with the client in
which monies were paid to the principal in exchange for an executed dismissal.
Following a one day bench trial, Shahab E. Fotouhi obtained a
determination that his client was not liable to indemnify another for
damages, and in fact obtained a refund of all monies the client paid.
Two insurance companies had each paid $125,000 to settle a serious
personal injury claim. The settlement was made to cap fees and exposure,
while reserving the right to allocate percentages of fault later. The
adverse party sued the client for the $125,000 the adverse party
paid in the settlement. Instead, the judge ruled that the adverse party
was 100% at fault and Mr. Fotouhi's client was 0% at fault. As such, Mr.
Fotouhi obtained a judgment for the monies the client had paid to
settle the personal injury case ($125,000), plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.
Darren W. Epps represented the property owner in a personal injury
lawsuit where plaintiff was impaled on rebar during construction of a
shopping center. Plaintiff sued various contractors and the property
owner claiming over $500,000 in damages. Mr. Epps filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment claiming the property owner was not responsible for
plaintiff's injuries as a matter of law pursuant to the Peculiar Risk
Doctrine. Following a lengthy hearing, the Court granted the Motion
of the property owner.
On behalf of a prospective buyer, Wendy L. Hillger was able to persuade
the seller to return the client's escrow deposit on an Oakland, California
duplex. For several weeks, the client and the client's real estate agent
tried to obtain the escrow funds release, without success. Ms. Hillger
had the escrow deposit returned to the buyer in one week, and also negotiated
with the escrow company to drop all its charges.
Michael J. Gilroy and Daniel P. Iannitelli successfully brought and won a
motion for summary judgment against the injured party in San Mateo County.
The lawsuit involved a plaintiff who was working on a construction site when
he fell through a skylight opening with half of his body landing on a bathtub
situated below resulting in serious and permanent injuries to his neck and back.
The skylight had been installed and framed by the client. The successful
motion brought about the general contractor's recent decision to completely walk
away from its multi-six-figure indemnification claim against the client.
Shahab E. Fotouhi recently successfully defended a general contractor
in Shasta County. The contractor was sued by the homeowners for alleged
construction defects in a large custom home. At binding arbitration,
Mr. Fotouhi obtained a defense award on behalf of his client. Mr.
Fotouhi also received an affirmative award for attorneys' fees and costs
against the homeowners. The plaintiff homeowners appealed the binding
arbitration award. After the appellate briefs were exchanged, the
homeowners dropped the appeal and settled the case for a significant six
figure sum in favor of the client.
Darren W. Epps represented the roofer of a four-building condominium
project who was sued by the general contractor in a cross-complaint
for indemnity. Plaintiff, a resident of one of the condominium units,
sued the general contractor and others for personal injuries suffered
as a result of exposure to toxic mold. After four days of trial, the
general contractor accepted a nuisance value settlement as to the roofer
which had been initially offered months before.
Shahab E. Fotouhi and Wendy L. Hillger recently convinced an
insurance company to walk away from its multi-million dollar claim of
indemnity. The lawsuit involved alleged defects in the construction of a
custom home in Santa Barbara, California. Mr. Fotouhi and Ms. Hillger represented an
insurance company who had insured the plumber at the 10,000 square foot
residence. Without the client paying any money, the adverse party
dismissed all of its claims with prejudice and signed a release.
» news & events page 3
| main news & events page
|
