Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

• In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), represented Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in defending the constitutionality of state statutes that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
• California Statewide Community Development Authority v. All Persons, 40 Cal. 4th 788 (2007), obtained reversal from the California Supreme Court of the trial court and Court of Appeal decisions on behalf of a joint powers authority in an appeal raising the issue of whether tax-exempt bond financing for pervasively sectarian schools violates article XVI, section 5 of the California Constitution or the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
• Whitmore Union Elementary School Dist. v. County of Shasta, 87 Cal. App. 4th 574 (2001), superceded by grant of review, 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 170 (2001), represented the County of Shasta in defending claims that arose from a loss suffered by County Investment Pool, including issues of sovereign immunity.
• In re Keisha T., 38 Cal. App. 4th 220 (1995), successfully represented minors in an appeal to safeguard the confidentiality of court records in juvenile dependency proceedings.
• Thompson v. Miller, 112 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2003), represented appellant-defendant in an appeal from the trial court’s order denying an award of attorney’s fees and expert witness costs.  The appellate court reversed and remanded.
• Marinello v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 4 Civil D026627 (1997), represented brokerage firm in trial and appellate court proceedings to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement.
• Donlon v. Smith Barney Inc., 3 Civil C021029 (1997), obtained summary judgment for brokerage firm dismissing customer claims for untimeliness under arbitration forum’s eligibility rules, and obtained judgment on appeal affirming lower court’s judgment.
• San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist. v. Kunkel, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1407 (1993), review denied and decision ordered not published, 1993 Cal. LEXIS 5287 (1993), successfully represented unified school district in validation action to validate school district bond financing.
• Southern Pacific Pipelines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 9 Cal. App. 4th 451 (1992), successfully represented County of Sacramento in defending against property owner’s attempt to invalidate a special assessment district.
• Banks v. International Billing Services, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 10567, successfully represented law firm in a malicious prosecution action at the trial court and on appeal; appellate decision affirmed trial court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants. 
• Beavers v. Allstate Insurance Co., 225 Cal. App. 3d 310 (1990), represented insurance company in appeal from judgment in case involving an alleged bad faith cancellation of an insurance policy.

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• Langianese v. Schwarzenegger (appeal pending) representing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in numerous state and federal court actions challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 83 (also known as the Sexual Predators Punishment and Control Act: Jessica’s Law), which prohibits certain sex offenders from living near schools or parks where children regularly gather.
• American Ins. Assoc. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003), defended the California Insurance Commissioner in actions brought by international insurance companies challenging the constitutionality of California’s Holocaust Victims’ Insurance Relief Act.  Summary judgment in favor of the Insurance Commissioner was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. 
• Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Low, 296 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002), rev’d sub nom. American Ins. Assoc. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003),represented California State Insurance Commissioner in an action challenging constitutionality of California’s Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act of 1999. Ninth Circuit reverse summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and granted summary judgment to Insurance Commissioner.
• Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed. App. 624 (9th Cir. 2006), obtained a reversal in an asylum case of an adverse credibility determination by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. 
• Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2003), represented prison inmate in Section 1983 action that arose from his having been shot by a prison guard during a prison yard disturbance.
• United States v. 5145 North Golden State Boulevard, 135 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1998), represented property owner in civil forfeiture appeal.
• Russo v. Mason-McDuffie Investment Co., Case No. 89-16268 (9th Cir. 1991),  cert. denied (1991), won summary judgment for defendant in Northern District of California on statute of limitations grounds, won affirmance on appeal, and won denial of plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari.

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• Machado-Miller v. Mersereau & Shannon, LLP, 180 Ore. App. 586, 43 P.3d 1207 (2002), represented individual in appeal from dismissal of legal malpractice claim that presented complex choice-of-law issue.
• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington, 142 Wn. 2d 183, 11 P. 3d 762 (S. Ct. Wash. 2000), successfully challenged initiative as unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule.

 

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• Stahl v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, defended brokerage firm and its registered representative against claims arising out of $5 million loss that claimant allegedly suffered following her failure to hedge a 110,000 share position in Cisco stock that she had acquired by exercising employee stock options.  NASD arbitration hearing lasted 12 days.
• A.G. Edwards & Co. v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., successfully represented several former A.G. Edwards employees who left Edwards to join Stifel Nicolaus following Wachovia Securities’ acquisition of Edwards, in federal court, state court, and arbitration proceedings.
• Bartolemei v. Smith Barney Inc., defended brokerage firm against selling away claims brought by seventeen sets of claimants, alleging that the firm was liable for losses resulting from real estate investments that occurred away from the firm.  Pacific Stock Exchange arbitration hearing lasted 26 days.
• Bierce v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, represented brokerage house and individual respondent in NASD arbitration against allegation of elder abuse in connection with purchase of variable annuities.
• Kingswood v. Button, represented institutional client in state court action on claims of fraud and conversion brought on behalf of large number of investors on behalf of more than 80 individuals as to a private placement investment.
• Haley v. MLCC, represented mortgage lender on state court allegations of deceptive collection practices.
• Ryan v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Holding Inc., represented brokerage firm in litigation brought by pool of investors alleging misrepresentation in sale and marketing of limited partnerships.
• Betchart v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., represented brokerage firm in NASD arbitration on claims of misrepresentation as to sale of securities.
• Telahun v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house and individual respondents in NASD arbitration hearing against allegations related to options trading and failure to hedge concentrated stock position. Later, successfully represented brokerage house in state court action to confirm dismissal of claim.
• Don v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house and individual respondents in NASD arbitration against claim that customer was wrongfully blocked from accessing joint account during divorce proceeding.
• Worden v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house and individual respondent in NASD arbitration against claim that broker made unsuitable recommendations to an elderly client regarding purchase of mutual funds.
• South Bay Urology v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house in NASD arbitration against claims of unsuitable investments in professional’s retirement and pension plan accounts.
• Merrill Lynch v. Hartwell Construction Co., defending Merrill Lynch against allegations concerning handling of checks.

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• Brand v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, defended lessee in dispute with property owner after fast food restaurant was destroyed by fire.  Action settled during trial. 
• Harley Davidson Motor Co. v. Wintune Graphics, represented manufacturer in breach of contract claim against parts supplier. 
• Bloom v. Sacramento A-1 Door, represented corporation in minority shareholder action.
• Millwork Specialties International v. The Stanley Works, represented plaintiff in action alleging breach of non-disclosure agreement.
• Yamasaki Farms v. Lipton, successfully defended cannery in private arbitration against claims that cannery breached contract by refusing to accept shipments of tomatoes sprayed with pesticides.
• HMA Franchise Systems Inc. v. Stoker, represented franchisor in dispute with franchisee arising from discontinuation of franchise agreement.

 

 

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), represented Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in defending the constitutionality of state statutes that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
• American Ins. Assoc. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003), defended the California Insurance Commissioner in actions brought by international insurance companies challenging the constitutionality of California’s Holocaust Victims’ Insurance Relief Act.  Summary judgment in favor of the Insurance Commissioner was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. 
• Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC v. Golden State Transportation Financing Corp. (appeal pending), defending validity of tribal gaming compacts and over $900 million in associated bonds in a reverse validation action. Obtained judgment on the pleadings after trial court found action to be time-barred.
• In re E. J., etc. (appeal pending in California Supreme Court), defending the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in action challenging constitutionality of the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act of 2006, known as “Jessica’s Law,” which prohibits registered sex offenders from living near schools or parks when children regularly gather.
• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington, 142 Wn. 2d 183, 11 P. 3d  762 (S. Ct. Wash. 2000), successfully challenged initiative as unconstitutional because it violated the single subject rule.
• Miller v. City of Sacramento, defended the City of Sacramento in an action brought by National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association challenging constitutionality of City ordinance banning sale of “junk guns.”  Judgment granted in favor of City upholding ordinance in all respects.

 

 

• Bouchat v. PaineWebber Inc., 3 Civil No. C021298 (1997), obtained summary judgment in trial court for brokerage firm and several employees in defense of wrongful termination and related employment claims, and obtained judgment on appeal affirming lower court’s judgment.
• Kovanic v. GlobeSpan, Inc., obtained preliminary injunction for employee barring his employer from enforcing noncompete clause against him in connection with employee’s anticipated move to new employer. 
• Miller v. Magnum Industries, Inc., represented individual in litigation arising out of a former employer’s attempt to enforce a non-compete clause against her in California.

 

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• American Environmental Safety Institute v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Company, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 10323, prevailed in the trial court and on appeal on behalf of Procter & Gamble when the California Attorney General challenged Procter & Gamble’s Proposition 65 settlement with a private plaintiff. 
• Watershed Enforcers v. California Department of Water Resources, represented the California Department of Water Resources in a writ proceeding alleging non-compliance with the California Endangered Species Act. 
• People of the State of California v. Sonora Mining Corp., obtained a favorable settlement for a mining company client in a lawsuit filed by the California Attorney General that sought to obtain a cleanup order and damages for alleged and threatened groundwater contamination at an inactive gold mine in Northern California. 
• Sagouspe v. Westlands Water District, represented farmers in California’s Central Valley in class actions in state and federal court to determine their rights to water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
• Idaho v. Norton, represented the State of Idaho in an action filed pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act challenging the United States Department of the Interior’s decision to reintroduce grizzly bears into Idaho.

 

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• Langianese v. Schwarzenegger (appeal pending) representing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in numerous state and federal court actions challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 83 (also known as the Sexual Predators Punishment and Control Act: Jessica’s Law), which prohibits certain sex offenders from living near schools or parks where children regularly gather.
• Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed. App. 624 (9th Cir. 2006), obtained a reversal in an asylum case of an adverse credibility determination by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. 
• Women’s Resource Network v. Gourley, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (E.D. Cal. 2004), prevailed on summary judgment on behalf of the Yosemite Fund in a lawsuit alleging that California’s specialty license plate program violated the First Amendment.  The court held that the Legislature did not infringe on free speech rights when it approved a specialty license plate for the Yosemite Foundation to raise funds for Yosemite National Park. 
• Diaz v. INS, 648 F.Supp. 638 (E.D. Cal. 1986), obtained preliminary injunction for several asylum applicants that enabled them to obtain work permits pending the INS’s determination of their asylum applications.
• Yeager v. AT&T, defending cellular company in trademark infringement and right of publicity action brought by General Chuck Yeager as a result of use of General Yeager’s name in company press release.
• Grossman v. West Publishing Co., representing joint author in action against publishing company for breach of contract and accounting. 
• Ash v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 806 F.Supp. 1474 (E.D. Cal. 1992), defended Dean Witter against customer claims arising from customers’ investment in tax shelters purchased away from the firm.
• Russo v. Mason-McDuffie Investment Co., Case No. 89-16268 (9th Cir. 1991),  cert. denied (1991), won summary judgment for defendant in Northern District of California on statute of limitations grounds, won affirmance on appeal, and won denial of plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari.
• Fru-Con Construction Corporation v. SMUD, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64017 (E.D. Cal 2007), obtained a dismissal of SMUD's counterclaims against Fru-Con Holding Company on the grounds that the company is not an alter ego of its subsidiary.

 

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• California Correctional Peace Officers' Association  v. Schwarzenegger, successfully defended Governor Schwarzenegger from claims that the Governor's official State website improperly contained ballot-advocacy materials. Court granted Governor's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• In re Inverse Condemnation Cases, successfully defended the State of California in inverse condemnation actions filed by national energy companies seeking damages over $1 billion after Governor Davis commandeered energy contracts during California's 2001 energy crisis. Summary judgment granted in favor of State.
• Shaw v. Chiang, represented the California Department of Finance and the Controller in a writ proceeding challenging $1.2 billion of appropriations in the 2007-2008 state budget.  The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the majority of the challenged appropriations. 
• County of Shasta v. Accounting Firms and Clearing Broker, represented a California county in litigation against two of its auditors and a clearing broker in connection with investment losses suffered as a result of a defunct broker-dealer firm having recommended investments in structured notes issued by Sallie Mae where the value at maturity was tied to the exchange rate between the dollar and the Japanese yen.
• Vallejo City Unified School District v. Education Audit Appeals Panel, defended the Panel in a writ proceeding brought to challenge penalties assessed by the Panel against a school district.
• Hallfeldt v. City of Folsom, defended City in challenge to Housing Element of City’s General Plan.  Case concluded with stipulated settlement designed to insure development of significant affordable housing opportunities while preserving City control over future development.
• Alhambra City and High School District v. California State Board of Education, successfully represented San Gabriel Unified School District in litigation challenging the process by which San Gabriel became a unified school district. 

 

 

Click on a link below to find information regarding the highlighted cases.

 

• Jim Marshall and Johnny Cash v. Urban Outfitters, represented rock n’roll photographer, Jim Marshall, and singer Johnny Cash in copyright infringement and right to publicity action brought against national retailer for unauthorized use of famous photograph taken during concert at San Quentin Prison.  Action was settled.
• GlobalStreams, Inc. v. Serious Magic, Inc., successfully defended several entrepreneurs and their start-up company against claims of trade-secret misappropriation made in connection with their development of a software program that enabled users to create and process video-graphics using only their personal computers and a video camera. 
• Sean Moorman v. Spencer Gifts, representing professional photographer in case arising from the unauthorized use of his copyrighted photograph of Willie Nelson.
• David Taussig & Associates v. Goodwin, represented closely-held corporation in litigation against three former employees who resigned and took copies of trade secret information to create a competing enterprise.
• Taylor v. Hilton Hotels, Inc., representing nationally recognized artist in action under Visual Artists Rights Act arising from destruction of mural in San Francisco Hilton. Action was settled.
• Proven Methods Seminars v. American Grants and Affordable Housing Institute, defending start up company in action alleging copyright and trademark infringement as well as trade secret misappropriation. 
• FunCat Leisure Craft v. Johnson Outdoors Inc., representing plaintiff in misappropriation of  trade secrets, trade dress infringement and unfair competition claim against national outdoor recreation company. 

 

 

• Represented major food manufacturer in regulatory proceedings and litigation brought by the California Attorney General involving acrylamide in potato chips.  
• Defended global pharmaceutical company in an action brought by the Attorney General involving two mercury compounds, thimerosal and phenylmercuric acetate, in nasal sprays.
• Defended major cosmetic manufacturer in an action involving alleged exposure to toluene in nail polish.
• Represented one of the largest global consumer product companies in Proposition 65 litigation concerning chemicals used in cosmetics, shampoo, laundry detergent, toothpaste, body lotion, bleach, and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.
• Negotiated a favorable settlement for large beverage company in an action brought by the Attorney General involving alleged exposure to lead from the applied ceramic labels on glass soft drink bottles.
• Negotiated a favorable settlement for computer manufacturer in an action involving alleged exposure to lead from computer motherboards
• Defended dietary supplement manufacturer in litigation involving alleged exposure to progesterone from wild yam cream.
• Advised dietary supplement distributor concerning compliance with Proposition 65.