Delivering Results for our Clients
Representative Trial Verdicts and Arbitration Awards
2023 Panelo v. Solar Company: In this consumer protection and breach of contract case, our firm defended a solar contractor against claims that it breached a contract for reinstallation of a residential solar energy system after Claimant replaced his roof. Plaintiff sought damages for the cost of reinstalling the system, for the increased cost of obtaining replacement electricity from the utility and to cancel the remaining ten years on his solar lease without early termination penalty. After a one-day binding arbitration at AAA, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Respondent and against Claimant, with Claimant required to pay the early termination fee to Respondent for the premature cancellation of their solar contract.
2023 Esezobar v. Online Used Car Dealer: In this consumer fraud and breach of contract case, our firm defended the online used car dealer against claims that it breached the vehicle sale contract, breached the warranty of title and was subject to liability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty and Magnuson-Moss Acts arising from a substantial delay in obtaining license and registration of the vehicle in Claimant’s name. Claimant sought cancellation of the 3-years remaining on their retail installment sale contract loan, loss of use damages measured by the fair rental value of a comparable vehicle, as well as civil penalties and punitive damages. After a one-day binding arbitration at AAA, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Respondent and against Claimant, with Claimant recovering nothing on their arbitration claim.
2023 Arriola v. Solar Company: In this property damage case, our firm defended the solar energy provider against claims that it damaged the exterior cover of their electric storage backup battery it sold to Claimants during installation. Claimants sought damages for the full cost of replacing the battery as a result of what Respondent contended was cosmetic damage. After a one-day binding arbitration at AAA, the arbitrator entered an award consistent with Respondent’s position that Claimants were entitled to no more than 10% diminution in value of the battery due to the damage sustained rather than full replacement cost.
2023 Mackey v. Solar Company: In this breach of contract and construction defect case, our firm represented the solar energy provider against claims that it refused to reconnect and provide its warranty for the solar energy system it leased to Claimants after the system was removed and reinstalled by another solar contractor to facilitate their roof replacement due to hail damage. Claimants sought to cancel their solar lease and recover damages for the increased cost of purchasing replacement electricity. Respondent contended that Claimants’ solar installer negligently reinstalled the system requiring that it be removed and replaced before it could be reenergized. After a two-day binding arbitration at JAMS Denver, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Responding finding that the solar lease remained in full force and effect and requiring the removal and proper reinstallation of the system prior to being reenergized, subject to Responding contributing to the cost of replacing the section of roof affected by the system and crediting Claimaints one monthly lease payment.
2023 Leyesa v. Online Used Car Dealer: In this consumer fraud and breach of contract case, our firm represented an online used car dealer against claim of breach of contract and consumer fraud with respect to the sale of a used car. Claimant alleged that Respondent failed to timely payoff the outstanding loan balance on their trade-in vehicle resulting in damage to their credit and allowing them to stop making payments on the vehicle they purchased. Respondent contended that payoff of the trade-in loan was not part of the agreement of the parties. After a two-day binding arbitration at AAA, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client and against Claimants on their claim, and on our client’s counterclaim for past due payments on their auto loan and providing declaration that their retail installment sale contract remained in full force and effect for the duration of the loan.
2023 Munoz v. Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, our firm represented the solar energy provider against claims that it misrepresented the performance of the solar energy system leased to Claimants, and misrepresented the savings they would realize with respect to their utility bills. After a one-day binding arbitration hearing at JAMS Denver, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client and against Claimants.
2022 McCracken v. Capital Equity Management Group: In this real estate fraud case, our firm represented the homeowners who asserted a claim against their sellers for fraud with respect to the failure to disclose renovations that were done in violation of building codes and without permits and resulted in leaks and water damage. After a two-day binding arbitration at AAA, the arbitrator entered in award in favor of our clients and against Defendant for the cost of repairing the water damage in addition to reimbursement of our clients’ attorney’s fees and costs.
2022 Oquendo v. Solar Company: In this bodily injury case, Claimant claimed mold that developed from a solar panel installation related roof leak caused her to suffer severe, permanent and disabling injuries and medical conditions, including mast cell activation due to mold toxicity for which she sought a multi-million-dollar damage award. Respondent, represented by our firm, admitted responsibility for the roof leaks and had already paid for all repairs and mold remediation prior to the arbitration, but denied that Claimant suffered any mold related injuries. After a two-day binding arbitration at JAMS, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Respondent and denying Claimant’s claims for damages in their entirety.
2021 Kannan v. Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant, represented by our firm, breached its solar contract by increasing the installation price, and that Plaintiffs were entitled to have the system installed for the original contract price, in addition to recovering increased construction costs for their remodeling project that depended on the system installation, general damages, increased electricity costs as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant stipulated to honor the original contract price but disputed its liability for damages, attorney’s fees and costs. After a one-day binding arbitration at AAA, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Defendant and denying Plaintiffs’ claims for damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
2021 Aguilar v. Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, Plaintiff claimed that the solar energy systems installed by Defendant, represented by our firm, never operated properly and Plaintiff did not receive the savings on his electricity bills that he was promised. Plaintiff failed to make payments owed to Defendant on his solar energy systems and refused to allow Defendant to remove the systems. After a one-day binding arbitration at JAMS, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, ordering Plaintiff to pay Defendant the past due amount on his solar energy contracts and allow Defendant to remove its systems from his properties.
2020 Leboit v. Auto Manufacturer: In this lemon law case, Plaintiff claimed his vehicle was defective and that the vehicle manufacturer represented by our firm was liable under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for repurchase plus a civil penalty of two-times the actual damages measured by the purchase price of the vehicle. After a two-day binding arbitration at JAMS, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Defendant on all causes of action,
2020 Da v. Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, Plaintiff claimed that her anticipated utility company energy bills would be reduced to a certain level after the installation of her solar energy system. When the utility rates were not reduced to the extent she expected, Plaintiff stopped paying her solar bills. She brought this arbitration proceeding claiming consumer fraud, unfair business practices and breach of contract, seeking in excess of $200,000 in damages. After a one-day binding arbitration at JAMS, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of Defendant on all causes of action, ruling that Plaintiff had entered into the solar energy contract based on her own unilateral mistaken interpretation of that agreement. The arbitrator ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $3,000 toward her past due solar energy bills, cancelled the contract and allowed Defendant to recover possession of the solar energy system.
2020 Chun v. Solar Company: In this construction defect case, Plaintiffs claimed that they suffered roof leaks, resulting property damage, mold contamination, bodily injuries and emotional distress as a result of a defectively flashed roof penetration for a solar panel support stanchion installed by Defendant. Plaintiffs sued under the CLRA, UCL and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act seeking approximately $2 mil. in compensatory damages and an additional $3 mil. in punitive damages and civil penalties for a total of over $5 mil. Plaintiffs’ last settlement demand prior to arbitration was $1.9 mil. Defendant conceded liability for property damage reasonably related to the leak but disputed liability in all other respects. Defendant’s final settlement offer was $270,000. After a 6-day binding arbitration at JAMS, the arbitrator found in Plaintiffs’ favor on their claims for breach of warranty and negligent construction, but rejected all other legal theories including those for fraud, unfair business practices and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The arbitrator also rejected Plaintiffs’ damage claims for bodily injuries, emotional distress, civil penalties and punitive damages, thereby arriving at a compensatory damage award to Plaintiffs the sum of $256,000.
2019 Freeland v. Auto Manufacturer: In this lemon law case, Plaintiff claimed his vehicle was defective and that the vehicle manufacturer represented by our firm was liable under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for repurchase plus a civil penalty of two-times the actual damages measured by the purchase price of the vehicle. After a 5 day jury trial in the Orange County Superior Court, Judge Moss presiding, the jury returned a verdict awarding Plaintiff repurchase but finding in favor of Defendant in refusing to award any civil penalty on the grounds that Defendant had acted in good faith.
2019 Hollister v. Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, Plaintiff claimed that her anticipated energy savings was misrepresented to her by Defendant, and that she was entitled to rescind her solar energy contract and recover money damages. After a one-day binding arbitration at JAMS, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client and against the Plaintiff.
2019 Tapia v. Auto Manufacturer: In this case Plaintiff was alleging severe bodily injuries, including complex regional pain syndrome in her leg following an accident in which she was pinned between two vehicles. The accident was caused when a temporary worker from a staffing agency put the vehicle he was moving into drive instead of reverse. The case proceeded to trial by jury against the manufacturer represented by our firm, and the staffing agency in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Herbert presiding. Plaintiff’s settlement demand prior to trial was $40 mil. After five days of trial, including argument on motions in limine, jury selection and opening statements, the case settled for the available insurance policy limits of $13 mil. of which $11 mil. was paid by the insurer for the staffing agency and $2 mil. was paid by the insurer for our client.
2018 Nelson v. BMW Dealer: In this case Plaintiff purchased a used BMW M6 with a lemon law buy-back branded title which was fully disclosed to him. Dissatisfied with characteristics of the M6 which are harsher than lower performance models, Plaintiff stopped payment on his down payment check and demanded that the dealer repurchase the vehicle based on allegations of fraud and breach of warranty. The case proceeded to binding arbitration at JAMS. After a one-day arbitration hearing the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client on Plaintiff’s claim in addition to awarding the dealer the amount of the dishonored down payment check plus prejudgment interest against the Plaintiff.
2018 Atebar v. Toyota Dealer: In this case Plaintiff claimed he was defrauded in connection with his lease of a new Toyota Camry. He asserted claims under the Vehicle Leasing Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act alleging a violation of the single document rule. After a one-day binding arbitration at JAMS, an arbitration award was entered in favor of our client and against the Plaintiff.
2016 Hill v. Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, Plaintiff claimed that his anticipated energy savings was misrepresented to him by Defendant, and that he was entitled to rescind his solar energy contract. After a one-day binding arbitration, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client and against the Plaintiff.
2016 Henry v. Davis: In this case, Plaintiff claimed he was assaulted and battered by a 7-Eleven Franchisee who ejected him from the store. Defendant claimed that he used reasonable force in defense of himself and others by punching Plaintiff in the face after Plaintiff threw hot coffee on him. After a one-day jury trial, the jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client, the 7-Eleven Franchisee.
2015 Benson v. Fairfield Imports: In this case Plaintiff claimed he was defrauded by Defendant when he bought three used cars. Plaintiff claimed the vehicles had been prior rentals and that such vehicle history was not disclosed to him by Defendant as required by law. After a one day binding arbitration at AAA, an award in favor of Defendant was entered.
2014 David v. VW Dealer: In this case Plaintiff claimed he was defrauded by Defendant when he bought a used Infiniti G37 Coupe in which the engine failed after 12,000 miles due to oil sludge from lack of maintenance that occurred long before Defendant ever acquired the car. Plaintiff sued under ASFA, CLRA and Song-Beverly, as well for negligent misrepresentation. After a seven-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hayashi presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict for our client.
2014 NLV v. Structural Concrete Subcontractor.: In this construction contract dispute, Plaintiff claimed it was over-charged by Defendant on a $2.5 million contract to provide structural concrete for a 5-story condominium project. After a five-day bench trial in the San Mateo County Superior Court, Judge Buchwald presiding, our client received a defense verdict and was awarded $185,000 in attorney’s fees and costs against Plaintiff as the prevailing party under the contract containing an attorney fee provision.
2014 Nekrawesh v. Arno: In this rear-end collision case in which our client admitted negligence but denied causing any injury, Plaintiff claimed he suffered ruptured cervical and lumbar disks that would require surgery and permanently disabled him from his usual occupation as a taxi driver. After a five-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Colwell presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff.
2012 Jordan v. Toyota Dealer: In this case Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant auto dealer participated in identity theft committed by Plaintiff's estranged wife in the course of her purchase of a vehicle from Defendant in which Plaintiff's signature was forged. After a three-day bench trial in the Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Kingsley presiding, the court found in favor of our client and rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff.
2012 Jarvis v. Honda Dealer: In this case Plaintiff claimed that Defendant auto dealer wrongfully repossessed his vehicle after financing for his purchase fell through. Defendant contended that it had the lawful right to repossess the vehicle under the subject contract and that it timely sent notice of rescission of the contract to Plaintiff. After a four-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Bereola presiding, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff. Defendant was thereafter awarded $65,000 in attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party insofar as this action had been brought under the Automobile Sales Finance Act.
2012 Cabrera v. Toyota Dealer: In this case Plaintiff claimed that Defendant auto dealer wrongfully repossessed her vehicle after financing for her purchase fell through. Defendant contended that it had the lawful right to repossess the vehicle under the subject contract and that it timely sent notice of rescission of the contract to Plaintiff. After a four-day jury trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, Judge Mayhew presiding, the jury reached a verdict in favor of our client and rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff.
2011 DFEH v. Hesse Corporation: In this employment discrimination lawsuit, the State of California Department of Fair Employment And Housing sued our client for illegal discrimination on account of pregnancy in connection with its termination of the employment of Linda Alvarez. The Defendant denied any discriminatory intent and contended that it terminated Ms. Alvarez for falsification of her application for coverage under Defendant's group health insurance policy insofar as she denied she was pregnant on the insurance application and gave birth the following day. Defendant also contended that the claim was barred by after-acquired evidence that Ms. Alvarez falsified her insurance application in other particulars and also lied on her employment application and in her job interview with Defendant. After a four-day jury trial in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered a judgment of nonsuit in favor of our client and against Plaintiff
2011 Cheroti v. Honda Dealer: In this dispute over the sale of two new Honda vehicles, Plaintiff refused to return the vehicles he purchased after the dealer cancelled the contracts due to its inability to finance the transactions. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant did not timely cancel the contracts in compliance with the contract and converted the vehicles by repossessing them. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law in connection with the transactions. After a two phase bifurcated seven-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Grillo presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client.
2011 Hinojosa v. Quality Towing: In this dispute over the towing and sale at auction of motorhome, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant illegally towed their vehicle and refused to grant them access to retrieve their personal belongings prior to selling the motorhome at auction and disposing of the contents. Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to provide the required proof of ownership, or permission from the registered owner, required by law to gain access the motorhome since the vehicle was registered to a third party. After a three-day jury trial in the Clark County District Court, Judge Walsh presiding, the court entered a judgment of nonsuit in favor of our client and against Plaintiffs.
2010 Flenner v. Chevrolet Dealer. In this dispute over the sale of a used Ford F350 turbodiesel truck, Plaintiffs claimed that the our client defrauded them by failing to disclose the prior vehicle warranty repair history at the time of sale. After Plaintiffs failed to prove a causal connection between pre-sale warranty repairs and any problems with the vehicle after the sale, and after Plaintiffs failed to establish that the vehicle was worth less than they paid for it at the time of sale on account of any prior warranty repairs, Defendant's motion for nonsuit on the fraud claims that were tried to the jury was granted on the third day of trial in the Humboldt County Superior Court, Judge Brown presiding: Thereafter, the court found in favor of our client and against Plaintiffs on the nonjury issues tried to the court under Automobile Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law.
2010 Collins v. BMW Dealer. In this dispute over the sale of a used BMW 528i, Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant auto dealer violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act insofar as it charged a California new tire recycling fee on used tires that were on the vehicle at the time of sale. Plaintiffs sought restitution, injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. We argued that Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by Defendant's refund of the tire fee overcharge, and that the overcharge did not violate any consumer protection statutes. After a four-day bench trial in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered judgment for Defendant, and awarded our client its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending this lawsuit.
2010 Long v. Quality Towing. In this civil rights lawsuit Plaintiff claimed that Defendant violated 42 USC section 1983 by towing his vehicle and selling it at auction in derogation of his civil rights under the 1st, 4th 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff sought in excess of $70,000 in economic damages as well as general and punitive damages. Defendant contended the Plaintiff could not establish that he held valid title to the subject vehicle and that Defendant did not act under color of state law in the disposition of that vehicle. After a one-day jury trial in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Chief Judge Roger Hunt presiding, the court granted our client's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
2008 Guideone Insurance v. Kilgore. In this low impact rear end auto collision, Plaintiff paid out $153,000 in worker's compensation benefits to the driver of the vehicle that was struck from behind by our client. That driver had previously undergone a low back lumbar fusion, and Plaintiff claimed he required further low back surgery as a result of the subject collision. After a four-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Baranco presiding, the jury entered a defense verdict. Because Defendant received more favorable verdict than its CCP sec. 998 offer for a waiver of costs made at the inception of the lawsuit, Mr. Sidran recovered an award of over $20,000 in expert witness fees and costs for our client.
2007 Moretti v. Werner Ladder Company. In this products liability case, Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the rope used to raise his new 40' extension ladder broke, causing the ladder extension to fall and strike his right hand. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the rope failure he could no longer run his roofing business, would have to be retrained in another field, and would have to undergo multiple hand and wrist surgeries, including a fusion of four bones in his hand resulting in 50% loss of range of motion. We represented the rope manufacturer against allegations that the rope failed due to lack of adequate UV inhibitor resulting in premature UV deterioration causing failure of the rope. Plaintiff asked the jury to award over $1 million in economic and noneconomic damages. Defendant's last offer prior to trial was $235,000. Result: After a four day jury trial in the Douglas County District Court in Minden, NV, Judge Gibson presiding, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of our client.
2005 Bobbitt v. Berry-Hinckley Industries: In this premises liability case involving a slip and fall on ice at a gas station convenience store in Carson City, NV, We represented the property owner against Plaintiff's claim for damages, including the allegation that Plaintiff will require multiple spine surgeries as a result of the accident. Plaintiff's last settlement demand prior to trial was $250,000. Defendant served an offer of judgment prior to trial for $75,000. Result: After three days of trial in the Carson City District Court in Carson City, NV, Judge Maddox presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict. Defendant was awarded $19,090 in attorney's fees and costs against Plaintiff as a result of beating our offer of judgment at trial.
2004 Hardscape Paving v. Weeger Bros., Inc.: In this case involving collection of a disputed balance owed by the general contractor to our client the concrete subcontractor on a construction contract, Mr. Sidran represented the subcontractor in its collection effort at trial in the Orange County Superior Court, Judge Watson presiding. Plaintiff sought an award of $64,000. Result: After three days of trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of our client for the full amount sought under the subcontract plus attorney's fees, costs and interest for a total judgment of over $100,000. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
2004 Sharifi v. Estate of Stratton: In this case involving a dispute over the validity of promissory note and deed of trust encumbering a commercial property, Mr. Sidran represented the owner at trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto CA, Judge Mayhew presiding, seeking to quiet title by eliminating the debt. Defendants and Cross-Complainants sought $136,000 in principal and interest. Result: After two days of trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of our client, quieting title and declaring the note and trust deed to be void and unenforceable. The court also awarded our client $43,000 in attorney's fees and costs
2003 Lockett v. Flying U Rodeo: In this case in which the Plaintiff suffered a serious leg injury as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of the Cow Palace arena during the Grand Nationals Rodeo, we defended The State of California and Flying U Rodeo Company at trial in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City, CA, Judge Kopp presiding. Result: Defense Verdict. Affirmed on appeal.
2002 Anderson v. Mouradian: In this case of an alleged assault and battery by a store employee on a customer, we defended a 7-Eleven franchisee at trial in Solano County Superior Court in Fairfield CA. Result: Defense Verdict.
2001 Volckmann v. Southwest Door Company: In this case of alleged defects in custom made windows and doors, we defended the manufacturer at trial in the San Mateo County Superior Court in San Mateo, CA, Judge Gemelo presiding. Plaintiff's last settlement demand before trial was $375,000. Result: Defense Verdict.
2001 Davis v. K-Mart: In this case of an alleged slip and fall in which an 80 year old Plaintiff claimed severe bodily injuries, we defended K-Mart and Reyman Bros. Construction at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Kolin presiding. Result: Defense Verdict. Additionally, we won and collected a judgment for contractual indemnity, consisting of $83,000 in attorney's fees and defense costs, from the masonry subcontractor in this case.
2001 MacLaren v. Syas: In this case of a head-on motor vehicle collision in which Plaintiff claimed she suffered a permanent spinal injury, we defended the driver allegedly at fault at trial in the Trinity County Superior Court in Weaverville, CA, Judge Edwards presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
2000 Kirby v. 7-Eleven: In this case of an alleged civil rights violation in the form of disability discrimination, we defended the 7-Eleven franchisee at trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto, CA, Judge Shaver presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1998 DeMar v. Lemke Construction: In this case the defendant allegedly ran over Plaintiff's foot at a construction site while operating an all-terrain forklift. Plaintiff sued for a severe crushing injury to his foot. We defended the forklift driver and his employer at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Rogers presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1996 Steinbaugh v. Caltrans: In this case involving the wrongful death of a passenger who was killed when a vehicle she was riding in struck a temporary construction barrier in the median of the I-210 freeway near Pasadena, CA, we defended the construction contractor at trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Pasadena CA, Judge Swart presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1995 Cal Plaza v. Paller & Goldstein: In this case involving alleged construction defects at a commercial office building in Walnut Creek, CA, in which it was claimed that our client’s sheet metal flashing caused water leaks requiring costly repairs, we defended the sheet metal flashing subcontractor at trial in Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Van de Poel presiding. Result: Judgment of nonsuit for defendant.
1995 Gosch v. Bayside Village: In this case involving debris that fell from concrete forms during construction of a mid-rise apartment building causing the Plaintiff to suffer a spinal fracture, We defended the subcontractor accused of dropping the material at trial in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Chesney presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1993 Rodriguez v. County of Contra Costa: In this case involving a claim of inverse condemnation and damage to real property against the County and a developer, we negotiated a settlement with the Plaintiff and proceeded to trial on an indemnity claim against the responsible subcontractor in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez , CA, Judge Dolgin presiding: Result: Judgment in favor of our client for full indemnity in the amount of $275,000.
1992 Carpio v. EBMUD: In this case involving a motor vehicle collision in which an East Bay Municipal Utility District employee was allegedly at fault, we defended EBMUD and its driver at trial in the Contra Costa Municipal Court in Richmond CA. Result: Defense Verdict.
1991 Lyle v. City of Hayward: In this false arrest and false imprisonment case, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant wrongfully arrested him for public drunkenness. Defendant contended that Plaintiff arrived at the Hayward police station in an inebriated condition to file a complaint about being falsely arrested the preceding evening in San Leandro. and that he was properly arrested and jailed until he sobered up and was released. After a one-day bench trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Eaton presiding, the court found in favor of our client, and rendered judgment in favor of our client, the City of Hayward.
1990 Robertson v. AMC-Jeep Dealer: In this property damage case, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant negligently failed to protect his classic 1967 Mercury Cougar that was in Defendant's shop for repairs, from flood damage due to the flooding of the Napa River which inundated Defendant's business premises. After a two-day bench trial in the Napa County Superior Court, the court found in favor of our client, and rendered judgment in favor of our client and against Plaintiff.
1989 European Motors v. American States Insurance Company: In this dispute over title to a stolen vehicle, Plaintiff claimed that it was the one with valid title to the vehicle and that Defendant wrongfully repossessed the subject vehicle after it had been located. Defendant contended that it had paid its insured's theft loss claim regarding the vehicle and thereby acquired legal title that was superior to that of Plaintiff. After a one-day trial in the San Mateo County Superior Court, the court found in favor of our client, and rendered judgment in favor of our client