The firm counsels and represents corporations, partnerships and other business entities on a host of issues, including formation, financing, corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions, contracts, employment, intellectual property protection and regulatory issues.
The firm maintains a successful record representing individual, corporate and partnership clients in complex commercial litigation before courts and arbitral panels throughout the country.
Unfair Business Practices Litigation
The firm has prosecuted and defended multiple lawsuits involving claims for unfair business practices.
The firm has an established track record of representing policyholders in prosecuting claims against insurance companies for failure to pay claims, failing to defend an insured in litigation or otherwise violating their obligations.
Breach of Contract
LucasFilm Ltd. v. Sport Fun, San Francisco Superior Court. The firm represented LucasFilm in an action seeking to collect unpaid royalties from a company which granted the license to market sports-related products and toys using Lucasfilms’ Star Wars trademark and other marks. The firm successfully obtained a writ of attachment for $250,000, and then prevailed on defendant’s claim that the monies attached (in the full amount) were exempt. The case settled shortly thereafter.
Smart-Online v. Staples, Orange County Superior Court. The firm defended Staples in a lawsuit brought by a vendor alleging that Staples had breached an agreement to carry the vendor’s software product. The suit sought in excess of $800,000 in damages. The firm successfully obtained a jury verdict in favor of Staples.
Medical Self Care v. NBC, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. The firm represented the receiver of a failed Bay Area dot-com company in a lawsuit filed in the federal district court in New York against NBC relating to NBC’s multi-million dollar investment in by-then insolvent company. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the firm successfully convinced the court that NBC breached its agreement to allow client to assign almost $10 million in advertising time on the NBC television network to ConAgra, a Fortune 50 company. The case settled in mediation soon thereafter.
Sodexo v. Lohrey, San Francisco Superior Court. The firm represented Sodexo, one of the nation’s leading food and facilities management companies, in a lawsuit against a competitor to enforce a non-compete provision in connection with the sale of the business and equipment. Upon the firm’s emergency application, the court granted expedited discovery and entered a preliminary injunction to enforce the non-compete clause. The court accepted the firm’s position that the non-compete clause was enforceable under California law and later granted Sodexo its attorneys' fees and costs.
Black v. Lucasfilm Ltd., Marin County Superior Court. The firm defended Lucasfilm Ltd. in an action filed by Campbell Black, author of the short story based upon the screenplay for the Academy award-winning motion picture RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, claiming that he was owed over $4 million in unpaid royalties. The firm successfully defended the client, reaching a settlement in which the case was dismissed and no monies paid.
Commercial Lease Dispute
Lee v. Gateway Center, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. The firm represented Sodexo in successfully moving to intervene post-judgment in an existing commercial lease dispute for the purpose of applying for an award of its costs and attorneys' fees. The court accepted the firm's novel intervention theory and granted the firm’s motion. The parties subsequently stipulated to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the client’s favor.
Insurance Broker Malpractice & Insurance Coverage Dispute
Golden Gate Petroleum v. Thorson & Clarendon v. Golden Gate Petroleum, Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County Superior Courts. The firm represented a petroleum products distributor in two related insurance actions arising from a gasoline tanker rollover accident, causing substantial economic damages exceeding $600,000 and remediation costs exceeding $1.5 million. The firm asserted claims against the client’s insurer alleging that the policy limits fell below applicable statutory requirements, negotiating a settlement whereby the insurer agreed to pay $340,000 more than its stated policy limits. The firm also filed a malpractice action against the client’s insurance broker for having failed to obtain requested umbrella coverage.