Defense Cases

Schick vs. Mahdavi, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SC 099872: Defense verdict arising out of plaintiff’s claim that defendant embezzled company funds. Judgment included a $178,000 attorneys’ fee award to defendant.

FHI vs. Pan Gulf Energy Holdings, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 290304: Defense verdict arising out of plaintiff sub-contractor’s claim that defendant was a joint-venturer with the general contractor on the construction project, and thus liable for the amounts due for plaintiff’s services. Defense judgment included award of statutory attorneys’ fees.

Hertz adv. Marmol-Radziner, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SC 095315: Defense verdict arising out of plaintiff architect/builder’s claim that defendants had agreed to pay plaintiff for architectural plans for defendants’ home.

Yehuda vs. Rosh Investments, LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 616407: Defense verdict arising out of plaintiff’s claim that she had acquired a one-third interest in a commercial property.  Defendant convinced the Court that plaintiff’s substantial monetary deposits into defendant’s bank account were not intended to purchase an interest in the property, as there was no documentation to that effect.

Yehuda vs. RS West Hollywood, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 604231: Defense verdict arising out of plaintiff’s claim that she had acquired defendant’s 50% interest in an apartment building.  Defendant convinced the jury that his purported transfer of the 50% interest to plaintiff was a forgery.

Yehuda vs. Rosh Investments, LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. PC 057630: Judgment ordered in favor of defendant, arising out of plaintiff contractor’s mechanic’s lien claim for $1.5 million.  Defendant established that plaintiff directly employed workers on the construction project, but did not carry worker’s compensation insurance.  The failure to carry insurance voided plaintiff’s contractor’s license, which precluded him from recovering any amount for services rendered.

International Media Films, Inc. v. Kismet Entertainment Group, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC347238:  Summary judgment in favor of our client, a film producer, against the Plaintiff’s claims for, inter alia, Breach of Contract arising from an alleged settlement agreement between the parties.  The court held that there was no agreement as a matter of law. 

Planet Productions Corp. et al. vs. Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC et al.  Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC459967.   Defense judgment in favor of the firm’s clients, which included, Dimension Films, in connection with plaintiff’s claims for the right to ongoing financial participation from defendants’ exploitation of Stephen King’s Children of the Corn story.  Defendants also obtained a fee award in their favor in the amount of $84,320.

Sammy Tliche vs. Arosi Enterprises, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC089516.  The Plaintiff alleged various Labor Code claims the firm’s client, a food supplier to the airline industry, including claims for overtime wages and waiting time penalties.  During trial, after hearing testimony from Plaintiff regarding his job duties and hours worked, the Court granted Defendant’s oral motion for judgment by the Court pursuant to Code of Civ. P. § 631.8.  The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof of showing that he was a non-exempt employee under the state overtime regulations (8 Cal. Code Regs. 11040).  The Court also found that Plaintiff was unable to establish that he worked any overtime hours.  Judgment in favor of Defendant was subsequently entered by the Court.

Leetrianee Richardson vs. Leonard D. Eastwood, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 02CC02508.  Plaintiff sued Defendants for False Arrest and Imprisonment, Constructive Assault and Battery, Malicious Prosecution and Conversion when she was arrested for trespass after Defendants foreclosed on the property she was allegedly living in.  Plaintiff claimed she had a lease with the former owners.  The Defendants claimed it was a set-up to extort money as part of a series of lawsuits Plaintiff and her relatives filed against Defendants relating to various business dealings they had together.  After getting Plaintiff’s claim for Malicious Prosecution dismissed on demurrer, the firm prevailed at trial on all of Plaintiff’s claims.