Our attorneys have successfully represented clients in a wide array of contexts, winning victories at trial and on appeal, securing dismissals of lawsuits, and negotiating beneficial and cost-effective settlements.  The following is a sampling of some of our attorneys' successes:

• Funrise Toys v. Arnold, et al.:  In this shareholders' derivative action the complaining shareholders sought damages against our accountant clients on behalf of the corporation of more than $30 million in damages.  This case was tried by Robert Garrett and Efren A. Compeán.  After nine weeks of court and jury trial, and after favorable rulings by the trial judge on various complex issues,  our clients were released for payment of a nominal "five figure" amount.
  
  
• Millennium v. Brentwood Escrow, et al; BN Properties v. Commerce Escrow, et al.:  These related cases, which involved a potential exposure of over $35 million plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees, raised questions of escrow and title company liability as well as liability under a title insurance policy.  After Mr. Garrett and Mr. Squire successfully pared down plaintiff's causes of action and educated the court over the course of many months, the trial court finally dismissed plaintiff's lawsuit. 
  
  
• Hayden v. (Confidential):  In this contentious real estate dispute, the plaintiff, a prominent plastic surgeon, sued her landlord, a medical partnership, and our client, the management company, with respect to an alleged failure to deliver a purported option space in which plaintiff intended to construct a large surgery center.  Plaintiff claimed more than $10 million in damages, including lost profits.  Mr. Squire took the case to trial.  Pursuant to our firm's motion in limine, the court excluded plaintiff's damage expert, thereby eliminating $9 million of plaintiff's claimed damages.  The court then granted our firm's motion in limine to exclude all evidence against our client, based on a lack of any evidence of liability, and subsequently dismissed our client from the lawsuit.
  
  
• Howland v. (Confidential):  In this lender liability action, plaintiff Howland sued our lender client for breach of contract, lender negligence, fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a reverse repurchase warehouse loan agreement.  Howland contended the lender failed and refused to honor its obligations under the repurchase agreement, that the agreement constituted table funding, and was therefore directly responsible for over $700,000 in losses sustained by Howland due to RESPA violations. We secured a defense judgment after trial.
  
  
• First Interstate v. Levine, Cooper & Spiegel: A lender sued our auditor-client to recover $4 million of alleged losses purportedly sustained on a secured line of credit extended to an automobile parts manufacturer.  After a six-week trial conducted by Mr. Tully, the jury rendered its verdict in favor of the auditor, and the plaintiff paid close to $100,000 in costs.
  
  
• Lucitch v. Ticor Title:   In this claim of professional negligence against our escrow officer client, the plaintiff demanded $2,400,000 plus interest due to the escrow officer's admitted failure to record a deed of trust in connection with the sale of plaintiff's farm. After a $1,000,000 settlement offer was rejected, Mr. Garrett tried the case.  The escrow officer had no choice but to admit negligence in failing to record the trust deed, but we established at trial that due to the growth cycle of the crops in question, a crop lien attached to the property senior to the lien of the unrecorded deed of trust.  After a six-week trial the jury rendered a unanimous defense verdict in favor of our client.
  
  
• Monterosso v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation:  Monterosso sued our client, Lawyers Title, for alleged escrow negligence in recording a $400,000 deed of trust against an office building rather than the surrounding retail center.  Monterosso claimed $400,000 in damages due to the loss of the security and default by borrower on the loan.  Midway through the trial, the trial judge advised plaintiff of the substantial weakness of plaintiff's case.  Plaintiff immediately settled the case for a fraction of its claimed damage.
  
  
• Hillseth v. (Confidential):  This alleged legal malpractice action arose out of our attorney-client's representation of the plaintiff in a marital dissolution action and a civil lawsuit filed by a lender to collect on a loan the bank made to the plaintiff's family owned business.  Plaintiff alleged that our client was negligent because she allegedly persuaded plaintiff to enter into an inequitable settlement agreement, failed to uncover community assets that plaintiff's husband was allegedly hiding and improperly handled the lender action.  Plaintiff's damage claims were in excess of $1 million.  We filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that plaintiff failed to establish "but for" our client's alleged malpractice she would have achieved a better result.  Jennifer Getz argued the motion.  Despite heavy opposition from plaintiff's counsel, the Court granted the motion.
  
  
• Davidson v. (Confidential): A securities broker alleged the purported negligence of our clients, his former attorneys, caused a substantial award against him in a National Association of Securities Dealers arbitration.  Mr. Tully tried the case before an Orange County jury.  Following the cross-examination of the plaintiff, and with a motion to exclude his expert pending, plaintiff settled the case for one-seventh of his pre-trial demand.
  
  
• Hull v. (Confidential): The widow of a deceased co-owner of a furniture manufacturer sued our client, an attorney-accountant, claiming entitlement to over $2 million more than the actual distribution she received under a buy-sell agreement.  Mr. Tully tried the case.  The trial presented complicated evidentiary issues, which through motions in limine, offers of proof and objections we were able to resolve in our favor.  The three-week trial resulted in the jury's defense verdict on all counts.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's verdict in its entirety.  We collected the $111,000 costs award.
  
  
• Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation v. (Confidential): Accountants for an automobile dealership were sued by a captive finance company of Nissan Motor Corporation for recovery of a multi-million dollar deficiency on a wholesale line of credit after the dealership closed.  The case was vigorously prosecuted by one of the largest firms in the state, and presented a number of complex accounting and finance issues and, to put it mildly, an unusual cast of characters.  After a three-week jury trial which Mr. Tully tried, the jury returned its complete defense verdict in favor of our client accountants on all causes of action.  The case was thereafter settled on very favorable terms, including a substantial payment to our clients.
  
  
• Kirsch v. Lusa Lighting: Our accountant client served in the capacity of an outside controller-chief financial officer and had aided the principals in forming a manufacturing company.  The plaintiff contended that the accountant failed to detect certain anomalies regarding returns and defalcations resulting in consequential damages in excess of $5 million.  The last settlement demand before trial was $1 million.  The case was tried by Mr. Garrett before a jury.  The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict.
  
  
• Adler v. Bloom: An investor sued his financial advisor for $3 million alleging negligent and fraudulent stock advice.  The final settlement demand was over $1,000,000.  After Mr. Tully tried the case to a jury defense verdict, the financial advisor was awarded $60,000 in costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• Breton v. (Confidential): A bankrupt building contractor and its buyer sued our client, an auditor, for over $7 million based on an acquisition agreement and creditor claims.  Liability was admitted.  Mr. Tully tried the case.  A defense jury verdict was obtained as to buyer.  A verdict for the contractor was completely offset by the verdict for the auditor on a cross-complaint, resulting in zero recovery against auditor.  The trial judge of 45 years standing in the Superior Court commented after trial that the defense case, and particularly the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' expert, was among the best he had ever seen.
  
  
• Epstein v. (Confidential): Plaintiff, an orthopedic surgeon, sued his family law attorney for malpractice, claiming that the attorney had an obligation to seek enforcement of an ante-nuptial agreement which purported to severely limit spousal support.  Plaintiff alleged damages in excess of $700,000.  At the time of trial, the underlying law with respect to ante-nuptial agreements was in a state of flux.  We successfully limited the effectiveness of plaintiff's family law and ethics experts at trial, and obtained a defense judgment. 
  
  
• Cohen v. (Confidential): A high-profile plaintiff's contingency attorney unsuccessfully prosecuted an underlying wrongful discharge case.  Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal in the underlying case stated that there was no merit to the case and no evidence to support it.  Based on those statements, the employer, the successful defendant in the underlying case, sued for malicious prosecution and was demanding substantial punitive damages from our client. Mr. Garrett tried the case.  The court granted a non-suit in favor of our client.
  
  
• Confidential: A high profile entertainment and business trial lawyer was alleged to have intentionally misled the trial court by falsifying a seven-figure judgment.  The judgment debtor in that underlying case, who is also a well-known business trial lawyer, sued the attorney for abuse of process.  Shortly before trial, this case was transferred from another firm and assigned to Mr. Garrett to take the trial.  The settlement demand as the trial began exceeded $1 million.  After the trial court tentatively ruled in our favor of highly significant motions in limine, the plaintiff's case collapsed and the case settled for a contribution of $35,000 on behalf of our client.
  
  
• Lindsay v. Johnston: Beneficiaries sued the attorney who drafted a trust, alleging his negligent failure to include a provision for a "bypass trust" caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of estate taxes which otherwise could have been avoided.  Following the first phase of a bifurcated arbitration on the issue of the statute of limitations conducted by Mr. Tully, the case settled on favorable terms.
  
  
• Lewis v. Clark: Minority shareholders sued the majority shareholder and chairman of the board for alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to losses sustained on the sale of the company.  After the first phase of a bifurcated trial conducted by another firm resulted in a finding of liability, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, Mr. Tully was brought in to try the damage phase on behalf of the majority shareholder.  The result was an award of less than half of the claimed compensatory damages, and the trial court's rejection of all of plaintiff's extra-compensatory damages, including interest, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.
  
  
• Swanson v. (Confidential): In the course of preparing tax returns for a high income professional and his wife, our accountant client was accused of failing to make certain elections.  The case turned on the application of certain highly complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.  The damages claimed were approximately $500,000.  The plaintiff's expert was an extremely well known professor of law and taxation at a local university.  In rendering a defense judgment after Mr. Garrett's trial of the case, the court noted that the expert's credibility had been effectively destroyed on cross-examination.
  
  
• Daniels v. Leffler: In a liability case tried by Mr. Tully against our business manager client, the jury's award was one-fifth of the plaintiff's pre-trial demand, and included a finding of 60% comparative fault.
  
  
• Rodrigues v. Genske: Dairy farmers sued their accountants for losses incurred as a result of the failure of their business.  Mr. Tully tried the case.  The Court of Appeal reversed the plaintiffs' verdict, finding in favor of our accountant clients.
  
  
• Del Valle v. (Confidential):  Our client, a prominent family law attorney, sued Del Valle for fees.  Del Valle cross complained alleging legal malpractice in handling of a custody dispute which spanned over three years.  At trial, we obtained a defense award in favor of the attorney on the entire action, including over $55,000 in attorneys' fees incurred in defending against the malpractice claim.
  
  
• Beach Park Associates v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation:  Mr. Garrett and Mr. Squire represented our title insurance client in a case involving the duty to defend under a title insurance policy, with a potential exposure of more than $1 million.  Several respected appellate justices described the underlying facts as the most complicated real estate matter they had ever encountered.  After Mr. Garrett's opening statement at binding arbitration, the case settled on terms that were very favorable to our client.
  
  
• Kuzman v. A. Testoni, Inc.:  A model sued an Italian apparel and footwear manufacturer and its subsidiaries, represented by Mr. Squire, claiming misappropriation of name and likeness in the worldwide distribution of the defendants' advertising campaign and catalog.  After vigorously deposing the plaintiff and filing a motion for summary judgment, a settlement was negotiated on terms that were very favorable to the defendants.
  
  
• Ali v. Everlast:  A former boxer sued a sporting equipment company, claiming millions in damages for alleged misappropriation of name and likeness.  In the face of vigorous opposition from the boxer Mr. Squire convinced the U.S. District Court to dismiss the case to a forum more convenient to the equipment company.