Business Litigation Engagements

• AGF Reinsurance et al. v. Spar Aerospace - In an action testing the boundaries of industry‑standard contracts, we defended the Canadian manufacturer of a communication satellite that malfunctioned after launch in an action brought by an international consortium of insurance companies that underwrote launch insurance for the mission.

• Bass PLC v. The Promus Companies - We represented Bass in litigation filed in the Southern District of New York, which alleged breach of warranties made in connection with a $2 billion merger.  The action settled on favorable terms to Bass.

• California Independent System Operator Corporation - We have represented the California ISO, the nonprofit corporation that runs California’s electricity grid, in a wide variety of matters.  During the height of the California electricity crisis, we obtained injunctions forcing certain generators to continue supplying electricity, thus alleviating to some degree the rolling blackouts California experienced in winter 2001.  We have also represented the ISO in various arbitrations and disputes with market participants.

• Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines Corp. - With the American Civil Liberties Union, we are representing on a pro bono basis an American citizen of Bangladeshi descent, who was denied permission to board a Northwest Airlines flight shortly after 9/11, even after airport security agents and the FBI cleared the plaintiff to fly.  The case, filed in Federal court, alleges discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry and/or national origin.

• Claydon v. Nestle Waters North America - Representing Nestle Waters in defense of consumer class action alleging improper delivery practices by bottled water home and office delivery company.

• Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A. - In the trial court we won a complete dismissal of the plaintiff’s case against our client Baskin-Robbins in the face of multimillion dollar claims involving a dispute over a letter of intent and term sheet.  We then successfully defended the judgment on appeal. 

• Cox Communications - We have advised Cox Communications and its Bay Area television broadcast stations KTVU and KICU on matters pertaining both to business issues such as relationships with on-air talent and advertisers and to First Amendment issues such as the content of news broadcasts and responses to subpoenas and other inquiries directed to news reporters.  For example, the firm represented a KTVU/Fox reporter in motions to obtain access to wiretaps of his conversations with murder defendant Scott Peterson.

• Dumas et al. v. The Upper Deck Company et al. - Defended an unfair competition class action brought in federal court in San Diego against a distributor of sports trading cards arising from its marketing and advertising practices.

• Frank-Lin v. Impact Distribution - Represented alcoholic beverage company in lawsuit against manufacturing facility. Case settled for $1.1 million on second day of trial.

• Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch - We are part of an attorney team representing Abercrombie & Fitch in a nationwide class action alleging race and gender discrimination. 

• Hych et al. v. CTS - We represented a telecommunications firm sued in San Diego Superior Court in a consumer unfair practices action alleging “slamming” of telephone customers who were signed up for service contracts without their authorization. We obtained a defense judgment on all claims following trial in San Diego.

• Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. California Hotel Acquisition Corporation, et al. -Represented Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation and Bass Hotels and Resorts in various actions pending in federal and state courts in Los Angeles as well as the Ninth Circuit arising out of the termination of Inter-Continental's management agreement for the Hotel Inter-Continental Los Angeles.  The case involved breach of contract, tort and unfair competition claims.

• Koch v. PLM Corporation, et al. - We defended two class actions filed in Alabama and California against a major equipment leasing corporation arising from its sale to investors of limited partnership units in various equipment leasing funds.  After quickly obtaining a number of favorable rulings, we reached a tentative settlement of all claims which must be approved by the court.

• Kristensen et al. v. Great Spring Waters of America, et al. - We defended two consumer class actions against a manufacturer of nationally known bottled water products alleging consumer fraud arising from its labeling and sale of spring water products.  The claims were successfully resolved and the matter dismissed.

• Novartis/Various Arbitrations - Represented Novartis in a series of arbitration arising out of licensing agreements involving valuable technology.

• Stull ex rel. State of California v. Bank of America et al. - We represented the qui tam plaintiff in a False Claims Act and class action complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court.  We were joined by the State of California and approximately 300 local government entities against Bank of America in a dispute arising from the bank’s breaches of its duties as trustee and paying agent of municipal bond issues.  We were lead trial counsel in the first phase of a bifurcated trial which led to the payment in 1998 of a $187.5 million settlement, by far the largest settlement ever achieved in the history of the California False Claims Act.

• Visa v. Maritz - Representing Visa in connection with claims against Maritz arising out of Maritz's attempt to develop and deploy a points based rewards program for Visa and its members.

• Weiner v. Cal Shake - Represented a class of homeowners in a trial relating to sole of defective products.

Antitrust and Unfair Competition

• American Booksellers Association v. Barnes & Noble, et al. - We represented plaintiffs at trial in action alleging violations of Robinson-Patman Act and state unfair competition statutes. 

• Conroy, et al. v. Staples, Inc., et al. - This consumer antitrust class action was brought in the United States District Court naming our client Staples, Inc. as a purported defendant class representative of all retailers who sold 3M Corporation transparent tape in the United States.  Plaintiffs alleged that Staples, Inc. along with similarly situated retailers conspired with 3M Corporation to fix the prices of 3M transparent tape products and to exclude competitors.  We successfully obtained early summary judgment in favor of Staples, Inc.

• Crane v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. – Obtained a complete defense jury verdict on behalf of Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. in an action brought by Crane Helicopter Services. Crane asserted claims against Bell for defamation, trade libel, negligence, fraud, and unfair competition. Crane's last settlement demand before trial was $10 million. The case was tried in the Eastern District of California.

• Dorough v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al. - Defended a consumer class action filed in the Central District of California against a major retail pharmacy chain arising from its prescription medicine pricing practices.

• Elegent v. Dolby Laboratories –   We are defending Dolby Laboratories against antitrust and patent misuse claims relating to their licensing of the industry standard Dolby Digital audio compression for DVD video in a cutting-edge case involving the permissible scope of RAND licensing. This case is pending in the Northern District of California.

• Manasen v. California Dental Service - Served as class counsel for a plaintiff class of all dentists in the State of California in this antitrust class action alleging price fixing of dental fees and insurance coverage.  The action was dismissed pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act; the dismissal was reversed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the action was subsequently settled.

• Stafursky et al. v. Internet Success Systems et al. - Defended a nationwide leasing company in a class action alleging deceptive marketing practices, including violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and common law fraud and unjust enrichment.  We derailed the plaintiffs' case at the outset of the litigation by obtaining a trial court order staying all claims against our client based on a forum selection clause that required the plaintiffs to bring their claims in another state.  We then successfully settled the matter on favorable terms. 

• Union of Needletrades v. The Gap, et al. - Represented The Limited, Lane Bryant, and Abercrombie and Fitch in parallel actions in Hawaii federal court and California state court containing class alleging unfair competition claims under a variety of state and federal statutes.

• Whang v. Visa; Zagha v. Visa - We represented Visa International in these companion state court actions alleging breach of contract in the handling of traveler’s cheque claims.

Appellate Litigation

• Amra Industries v. GTE Mobilnet - We successfully defended in federal court a trial court summary judgment for GTE Mobilnet on a breach of contract claim.

• Behr v. Pacific Gas & Electric - We successfully defended on appeal a multimillion dollar plaintiff's trial judgment in a products liability action where the plaintiff had suffered serious birth defects.

• Budwin v. American Psychological Association - We obtained a reversal of a summary judgment ruling against the APA in favor of a psychologist disciplined for unprofessional conduct.

• Cheema v. Thompson - We prepared an amicus brief for The American Jewish Congress and The Coalition for Human Rights in Northern California in an action under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

• Ghent v. Calderon - In this court-appointed case, we successfully overturned the death sentence of  an inmate on California's Death Row; the opinion was published at 279 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2001).

• Imagine This v. Contel Cellular - We successfully defended a summary judgment for Contel Cellular and its parent company in a tort action.

• In re Bridget R - The firm filed an amicus brief in what has become a leading case on application of the Indian Child Welfare Act to adoption cases.  The decision was published at 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483 (1996).

• International Union, United Autoworkers v. Johnson Controls - In this Seventh Circuit case, plaintiffs challenged workplace rules restricting women "of childbearing age" from certain well-paid manufacturing jobs unless they furnished medical proof of infertility.  We filed an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs.  The decision was published at 886 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1988).

• Northern Trust Bank, et al. v. Bear Stearns, et al. - We obtained a reversal of a trial court sanction against a party and its trial counsel under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11.

• Sessions Tank Liners v. Joor Manufacturing - Served as co-counsel on appeal overturning an adverse ruling in favor of plaintiff in an antitrust action involving the Noerr-Pennington doctrine..

• Varian Medical Systems v. Delfino - We represented Varian's counsel on appeal, defending against contempt allegations following Varian’s successful trial verdict on the merits.

• Wang Zong Xiao v. Reno - We prepared the amicus brief for the American Bar Association in a challenge to violations of substantive due process rights of an alien brought to the United States against his will to testify in a criminal proceeding.

• Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America - The firm submitted an amicus brief in this case addressing whether a so-called "pay when paid" clause in a construction subcontract was effective to condition the subcontractor's right to payment on the general contractor's receipt of payment from the owner.  The decision was published at 15 Cal.4th 882 (1997).

• Wyatt v. Terhune - We obtained a reversal of an order denying a state inmate relief in a civil rights action.  The opinion was published at 280 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2002).

Internet and Software

• Boldryev v. Frankel - We represented the original developer of WinAmp, the industry leading MP3 player, involving claims of fraud, copyright infringement, and partnership accounting by an alleged co-developer, following the sale of the company to AOL.  The case was successfully resolved.

Real Estate Litigation

• 345 California Street - We were retained by the developer of this world-class property in San Francisco to try a complicated commercial lease dispute with one of its major tenants.  The dispute concerned the amount of excess rent the developer was entitled to receive on account of a lease assignment.

• Concar Offices - We were retained by the developer of this 200,000 square foot office complex in the City of San Mateo to defend it against easement claims made by the owner of an adjacent and competing office complex that threatened to substantially limit ingress and egress to the property.

• Constant Vineyards - We defended Constant Vineyards, a producer of luxury class cabernet sauvignon on Diamond Mountain in Napa, against claims by a neighboring landowner that it was entitled to several prescriptive easements across Constant Vineyards' property.

• Foundry Square - We provided pre-litigation counseling and assisted the developer of this major mixed-use complex in San Francisco's South of Market area in resolving a dispute concerning one of its key property acquisition agreements.

• Nut Tree - We represented one of three branches of the multi-generational family partnership that owned and operated, among other things, the Nut Tree restaurant and retail complex in Vacaville in partnership dissolution and fiduciary duty litigation.  Through the litigation, we successfully ended years of money losing operations and were able to extricate our clients from the failing partnership at full fair market value levels, despite provisions in the partnership agreement precluding such actions and requiring a buyout at much lower book value prices.

• RAF Enterprises v. Trident - In a case brought on behalf of a local restaurateur, we obtained a $9.89 million judgment (the largest in Marin County at the time) against a pair of landlords who owned and leased building in Sausalito.  In response to our client's request to take over the lease in connection with his purchase of the current tenant, the landlords demanded that he sell half of the business to them before they would agree.  The jury found that the landlords intentionally interfered with our client's agreement to purchase the existing tenant's business.

• Ridgetop Partners - We were retained to represent this vineyard developer and winery in connection with a CC&R claim made against it by neighboring land owners.  On behalf of the developer, we are working to ensure that the type of environmentally sensitive agricultural use it envisions will be permitted to continue and expand.

• Silverado Resort and Country Club Lease - In connection with our Hospitality Group, we thwarted an attempt by the owner of this luxury Resort in Napa Valley to terminate our client's long-term management agreement.  Since then, we regularly have provided pre-litigation counseling to our client on a variety of property management issues.

Securities and Commodities Litigation

• Clearly Canadian Beverage Corporation - We defended Clearly Canadian, a Canadian new age beverage company, in a class action suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California regarding alleged securities fraud violations.

• Cotelligent v. Skiritoi - We are pursuing claims for violation of securities laws in connection with oral proxy solicitations.

• Hodge v. Franklin; Vigneau v. Franklin - We represented the directors of a publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trust in companion state court class actions alleging violations of securities laws and related statutes.

• Howard v. Hui (Everex Securities Litigation) - In this securities shareholder class action, we defended two Hong Kong companies accused of insider trading and "control person" liability for false financial statements.  Plaintiffs sought over $300 million in damages.  We secured a complete dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint, with prejudice, before discovery.  The plaintiffs later dropped the appeal.

• In re Avant! Securities Litigation - We represented a corporate CEO in multiple consolidated class actions.

• In re Media Vision Securities Litigation - We represented the former worldwide vice president of sales for Media Vision in parallel securities class actions, an SEC investigation, and action by the U.S. Department of Justice.

• McKesson HBOC Securities Litigation - We are currently defending an officer of McKesson HBOC in one of the largest class action securities cases in U.S. history.  Dozens of cases have been filed and consolidated in federal court in San Jose, California.

• Monex, International, Ltd. - We defended  Monex, a California seller of precious metals,  and owner in a consumer  and securities  class action  (with a class of over 50,000) alleging misrepresentations in the sale and financing of precious metals. 

• Pinto v. Birr Wilson & Co., et al. - We represented a party in this class action securities case arising from the failure of an $18.5 million retirement center project funded by industrial revenue funds.

• Roti v. Tier - We defended against class action in Delaware state court alleging violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with a tender offer and cash-out merger.  We avoided entry of injunction and negotiated favorable settlement.

• SEC v. Abrams -  Represented CFO in SEC case relating to alleged backdating of stock option grants and other accounting errors.

• Waters et al. v. International Precious Metals Corporation et al. - We were lead trial counsel for the investor class in a precedent setting case brought against the upstream owners of a telemarketing firm that sold options on commodity futures contracts.  In January 1997, on the morning of closing arguments after a five-month jury trial in federal court in Miami, the defendants agreed to establish a $40 million settlement fund to pay the claims of the investors who had lost their money.

Trade Secrets

• Deluxe Data v. Visa International, et al. - In this case, perhaps the first in the country tried under the “inevitable disclosure” trade secrets doctrine, the firm represented Visa, its data processing system, and seven individuals who were sued for having left the plaintiff en masse, allegedly with knowledge of source code and “know-how” related to the functionality in ATM machines worldwide.  The case was tried in state court in Milwaukee for approximately two weeks, and our clients prevailed on every count.  The decision in favor of our clients was affirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.