Experience

A significant focus of our practice is in transportation, trucking and common carrier litigation. We work with some of the largest, most prominent trucking and common carrier bus companies in the country, as well as multi-national insurers, and we average a half-dozen cases per year in this area alone.

Our experience includes tractor-trailers, public and private buses, trains and light rail, dump trucks, tow trucks, garbage trucks, delivery vehicles and limousines. We routinely consult on high-exposure cases involving wrongful deaths, catastrophic injuries, traumatic brain injuries, amputations or paralysis. Whatever your case facts, the odds are we have seen them before.

Our work in this area includes:

• Highway accidents
• Crosswalk accidents
• Drunk drivers
• Falling asleep at the wheel
• Failure to use appropriate trailer type
• Gas tank explosions
• Negligent hiring and training
• Failure to properly service or maintain vehicles and tires

A key aspect of our work in transportation litigation involves preparing drivers for deposition and trial testimony, so we understand the unique issues that they need to communicate. Many of these witnesses are non-native English speakers, often causing them to be easily led during questioning. We work proactively with attorneys and their witnesses prior to deposition in order to anticipate troublesome questions and bolster performance, even when it is not obvious that the witness is especially problematic.

Our work on class action litigation has ranged from helping our clients develop compelling mediation presentations to mock trying cases, preparing witnesses, and assisting with jury selection and trial strategy.

Our consulting staff includes a trained statistician who has testified in court, among other things about representative sampling. We are experts at helping our clients communicate the complex statistical issues that often arise in these cases, including regression, clustering, classification, and factor analyses.

We have a considerable amount of experience working on class action litigation for a variety of case types, including wage and hour, employment discrimination, securities, antitrust, Fair Credit Reporting Act, product liability, construction defect, environmental contamination and cleanup, false advertising and trespass nuisance.

Representative Class Action Matters:

• A consolidated matter involving separate classes over late meal periods, underpaid meal periods and rest periods for a fast-food restaurant chain. A jury in Federal Court in California ultimately awarded a small fraction of what plaintiffs were seeking.
• An employment class action lawsuit for a tech industry client, involving claims of suppressed pay, and collusion to not recruit competitors’ employees.
• Wage and hour litigation brought by mortgage loan officers and other commissioned employees over failure to pay minimum wages and premium pay for overtime hours.
• An employment class action on behalf of a restaurant chain over misinformation printed on employee paystubs.
• A class action for a retail clothing company for unpaid time spent on security inspections at the end of employee shifts in their retail stores.
• A lawsuit for an insurance company over claims they failed to provide customers the correct notice required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for increasing premiums.
• A class action for a banking company for claims of fraud, breach of contract, bad faith, and defamation over their credit card fees.
• A consumer class action for a computer manufacturer involving claims of faulty computer screens.
• A false advertising lawsuit against a sporting goods manufacturer over misleading advertising for celebrity-endorsed equipment.
• Class action litigation involving faulty plumbing equipment.
• A lawsuit brought by a class of law school students suing for alleged negligent and false statements about the school’s accreditation.
• An environmental class action brought by landowners against the state claiming firefighting activities were negligently conducted.
• A securities class action for a banking corporation over investment losses.
• Securities class action litigation for a semiconductor manufacturer for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Code.
• Pharmaceutical price fixing class action litigation.
• A pair of consumer class action cases involving claims of price fixing on behalf of oil and gas corporations
• Price fixing class action litigation for a natural gas corporation.
• Antitrust class action litigation involving price fixing of flat-panel screens.
• Hundreds of individual cases arising out of class action product liability litigation, in which the class was decertified on appeal.

We have worked on hundreds of complex commercial and business disputes, including contract disputes over partnerships, service contracts, leases and purchases as well as business torts involving fraud, fiduciary duties and tortuous interference. We have conducted pre-trial research, helped prepare witnesses, assisted with theme development and selected juries in over 170 contract cases.

In our experience, the facts do not speak for themselves in most complex commercial and business torts cases. The facts in a particular case may seem to clearly favor one side, but in unraveling the order of events and the choices each party made along the way, often the case is not closed nor the verdict a ‘done deal’. Successfully unraveling the events and weaving a persuasive narrative are some key challenges in these cases for which we are uniquely qualified.

We have worked on hundreds of insurance cases, including bad faith and coverage matters. We work with some of the largest carriers in the country to conduct jury research in venues nationwide, and use creative, well-tested methods to uncover jurors’ key attitudes and common expectations from insurance companies.

Our team works with clients to develop the optimal way to inform jurors that the insurance carrier acted in the best interests of its insureds. We also help clients educate jurors on claim handling procedures in ways that jurors can understand. Furthermore, we teach clients how to communicate coverage decline without leading jurors to believe that insurance companies are more interested in saving money than in paying claims. In bad faith cases, we focus on assessing jurors’ level of anger toward the carriers, and find ways to abate that anger to avoid punitive damages.

We frequently work with insurance claims handlers and company representatives prior to deposition and trial. Jurors carefully scrutinize insurance company witnesses and it is important to humanize the company through those witnesses. If there is anything a witness can effectively teach about a company, that often gives them credibility.

Going into trial, we design juror questionnaires that elicit anti-insurance company attitudes. We then utilize questionnaire data and jury research results to identify juror strikes and cause challenges during jury selection.

Representative Insurance Matters:

• A statewide class action for an insurance carrier involving claims they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they failed to provide customers the required notice for increasing premiums.
• A coverage suit filed by a hospital. The dispute focused on whether water damage, due to heavy rains and water intrusion during roof repairs, were covered under a new-construction policy obtained for work to a different section of the hospital.
• A coverage dispute between a brine mining company and insurance carrier involving an environmental coverage policy for settlements paid to a group of landowners who were leasing the property to the mining company.
• A coverage dispute filed by a manufacturer of insulation products, for reimbursement of fees paid out on claims for asbestos-related injuries.
• A lawsuit by a general contractor when their insurance carrier denied coverage for construction defect litigation.
• A medical device manufacturer suing their insurance company for reimbursement of settlement fees paid over product liability claims.
• A financial corporation suing their insurance company for failing to pay settlements and defense costs in two lawsuits stemming from debt obligations sold to customers that were allegedly unsuitable for their portfolios.
• A complaint for breach of contract and bad faith resulting from a business interruption claim following Hurricane Katrina.
• A coverage suit filed by a hospital, for flooding and water damage sustained from Hurricane Sandy. The policy only provided for hurricane damage. However, the storm had been downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it hit land, and caused the damage at issue.
• A bad faith dispute for a major carrier for alleged mishandling of claims for hurricane-related damage to malls in Texas.
• A coverage and bad faith dispute for a major carrier with allegations a deductible was misapplied in a claim for hurricane-related damage.
• The re-trial of a complex insurance case, in which the first trial was lost, stemming from the Northridge earthquake in Southern California
• Claims for coverage and business losses at several pizza outlets in Los Angeles during the Rodney King Riots.

We have consulted on numerous construction disputes across the country, involving high-rise construction, new developments, tunnel borings, highway expansions and stadium additions. These disputes have ranged from defects, including mold and moisture intrusion, to breach of contract and cost overruns. Our overarching goal in these cases is to help craft jargon-free arguments that jurors can understand, remember and repeat during deliberations.

We recognize that construction cases are very diverse because they involve a wide variety of trades. As such, we tailor our consulting services to the specific trades and issues in each case, and generate ideas for informative visuals that help convey to jurors likely causes of construction problems.

Representative Construction Matters:

• A lawsuit stemming from a mile-long tunnel that was bored with the outlet in the wrong location.
• A construction defect case brought by a homeowner’s association in a high-rise residential tower, claiming several design defects, and a cross complaint against subcontractors, with claims of defects due to execution.
• Another construction defect case by a homeowner’s association against the builder, involving claims of improper waterproofing causing damage to the building, subterranean garage and outdoor common areas.
• A lawsuit filed by a joint venture construction group against the design contractor over architectural and design services for a highway expansion project involving seismic retrofit, construction of bridges, and widening of the highway.
• Assisting four of the largest construction and engineering companies in a construction delay lawsuit filed by a municipal government entity over the construction of a light rail project.
• A lawsuit involving extensive water damage throughout a hospital when a roofing contractor failed to safeguard against rain intrusion during a heavy storm.
• A lawsuit filed by the owner of an NFL football team, and the general contractor against an engineering firm due to cost overruns in the construction of a roof to the team’s stadium.
• Construction defect litigation arising from improper concrete and grading, and various above-slab architectural defects, in a housing development.
• A lawsuit stemming from a developer’s actions that caused a landslide and damaged plaintiffs’ homes.

Eminent domain cases don’t go to trial very often, but when they do, the focus is usually on discovery and the settlement process. In some instances, we have worked on behalf of the government entity, and in others, for the property owner.

Our experience includes The Colonies v. San Bernardino County, a high-profile lawsuit over flood-control improvements at a 434-acre residential and commercial development in California.

The key issue in eminent domain cases is often the ‘highest and best use of the property’ when the government condemns a business’s property. It is clearly stated in the law that the government is required to pay fair market value for the land. However, what’s “fair” to the government is not always the same as what’s “fair” to the property owner.

When there is a large dispute and a significant difference in the appraisal, a mock trial can be used to determine the best way to present the case to the jury. Results from a mock trial are often used by clients as part of the mediation process, and give clients a better sense of the value of an asset and what is a fair settlement. In addition to seeing which value jurors decide, jury research can be used to discover whether there are themes or issues that jurors will use in supporting their decision on value.

Jurors are often skeptical of the private party in eminent domain cases because the dispute involves a government entity. Consequently, jurors can be wary of awarding large sums of money out of fear that taxes will be raised or public funds will be used to compensate for the loss. Because of these apprehensions, the burden of proving value becomes especially challenging. The plaintiff’s case must be particularly exhaustive and thorough since the jurors have a personal stake in the verdict — their tax dollars.

Changes in property values can also create challenges for property owners. At trial, jurors are required to apply property values at the time of the seizure. This can prove challenging because jurors may be adversely affected by their knowledge of current market conditions, so it is important to explore these issues during jury selection.

We have over 30 years of experience in employment litigation in venues throughout the country, and it is one of our biggest practice areas. We work on everything from single-plaintiff cases to large class actions, and even Private Attorney General Act cases.

Our team has dealt with claims of discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, and has worked on employment cases involving issues of wrongful termination, failure to promote, retaliation, hostile work environment, harassment, and bullying.

Our clients range from large publicly owned corporations to family businesses, corporate officers, government agencies, non-profits, technology startups, media and entertainment groups, and universities.

We have more than 30 years of historical data on juror attitudes from which to call upon. And we continue monitor and analyze the shifting demographics and how juror’s experiences in the workplace are influencing decisions in the deliberation room.

Employment cases are often emotionally-charged disputes, and we can help develop the themes and arguments to best present your side of the case, prepare witnesses who have never been deposed or testified in a trial, and identify and eliminate the most problematic jurors.

It is presumed our obsession with celebrities translates into an advantage for them in the courtroom. Not necessarily. We have seen cases where their public persona has served as unwanted baggage. And we have also seen jurors vote against a celebrity even after admitting to being a big fan of theirs during voir dire.

As in every case, it is important to develop a persuasive narrative, work with witnesses – both high-profile and those less public – and identify and eliminate the most problematic jurors. We are well-equipped to assist with these tasks. Our work has involved musicians, athletes, producers, estates, agencies, broadcast and media groups, in disputes ranging from copyright to contract, royalties, idea submissions, employment, and defamation.

Below are highlights of our experience:

A dispute involving a rock band and a video game publisher over allegations of improper use of their image

A video game publisher’s trade secret lawsuit against a competitor and two developers, including a countersuit over royalties

A sports radio personality’s lawsuit against a media company for age discrimination and wrongful termination

A copyright suit brought by the estate of an R&B musician against and two musicians over a hit song

A performer’s idea submissions lawsuit against a production company involving a popular reality/competition show

A dispute over the unauthorized use of a celebrity chef in advertisements for an oven manufacturer

An employment/contract dispute over the development of a popular podcast

A lawsuit brought by a model/actor against a retail chain for the use of their image beyond the contract terms

A lawsuit over rights to produce a remake of a popular detective show on television

We are leaders in the field of intellectual property litigation, and it is a major focus of our work. We consult on a broad range of patent, copyright, and trademark actions, and have worked on more than 150 patent lawsuits around the country, in venues such as Eastern District of Texas, Northern and Central Districts in California, and Delaware.

We have a considerable track record helping trial teams achieve favorable verdicts in patent trials, especially when we are retained end-to-end to conduct mock trial research, prepare witnesses, advise on trial strategy, and assist with jury selection.

We place special emphasis on working with witnesses in these cases to prepare them for testifying at deposition and trial. We assist corporate representatives in developing strong company stories that provide important subtext for the jurors. We also specialize in working with highly technical witnesses like inventors and experts to help them communicate complex issues and become better teachers of the technology.

We routinely work with foreign witnesses, from China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Australia, the U.K. and other countries to help them understand the climate of American courtrooms and traverse cross-cultural boundaries to communicate clearly and effectively.

We work across an extremely diverse range of industries and technology types, including:

• Computer Hardware and Components: DRAM, SRAM, Chip Packaging, LCD Panels, Controllers
• Chip Design and Circuitry: Microprocessors, Circuit Interconnects, SOC, ASIC, Bus Design, Clocking Hardware/Software Layer Welding
• Software: Libraries of Downloadable Software and APIs, Enterprise Content Management, Digital Media Downloads
• Industrial Machinery: Agricultural and Farm Equipment, Aircraft Engines, Industrial Ovens
• Consumer Products: Smartphones, Golf Balls, Barcode Scanners, PCMCIA Cards, Automobile Design
• Life Sciences and Medical Devices: Synthetic Hair Fiber Polymers, Arterial Stents, Monoclonal Antibodies, Orthopedic Surgery Table, Radiation Oncology Devices
• Wireless and Cellular: Standards: 802.11a/b/g/n, WiMAX, 3GPP, IS-95/CDMA, Security Keys, Polling Schemes, Timers, Quality of Service, Spread Spectrum/Multiplexing, Power Savings, Automatic Repeat Request schemes

A significant focus of our work is in premises liability and personal injury litigation involving shopping centers, retail stores, restaurants, hotels, casinos, apartments and other large residential and commercial properties.

We have helped owners and managers successfully deal with a wide range of negligence claims, including failure to provide adequate security, failure to warn and failure to adequately maintain property in everything from slip and falls to murder by a gang member. We routinely consult on high-exposure cases involving wrongful deaths, catastrophic injuries, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, amputations, paralysis, soft tissue injuries and claims of PTSD.

We utilize specific psychological concepts, including attribution theory and counterfactual thinking, to help focus jurors on the plaintiff’s choices and mistakes. Our goal is to give clients the most realistic assessment possible of their risks of going to trial.

Representative Premises Liability Matters:

• A case against a casino originating from an unanchored poolside umbrella that was carried by a gust of wind and struck a guest on the back of her head, causing her to fall forward onto the ground.
• A premises liability case involving a hotel guest, who claimed the hotel failed to provide adequate signage, and dove into a shallow pool, rendering him a quadriplegic.
• A wrongful death of a suspected shoplifter who was apprehended by security guards in the parking lot of a department store, and pinned to the ground in extreme heat.
• A case involving veterinarian who was left a paraplegic in a ski accident, and claimed the ski resort failed to provide proper warning signs on their ski slopes.
• A wrongful death case for a ski resort, involving a collision between a skier and snowboarder, for failing to provide proper signage and fencing.
• A wrongful death case involving a hotel guest who fell out of an open window.
• A premises liability case involving a contractor who was onsite installing equipment in a theater, and fell into a pit onstage severely injuring himself.
• A plaintiff, who was a paraplegic and able to walk with a cane prior to the accident, was using hotel stairs when the hand railing collapsed, causing him to fall and thereby confining him to wheelchair.
• A premises case involving family members who sustained multiple severe injuries from an electrified metal staircase handrail.
• A property owner who was sued for failing to put an assailant, who was a known threat, on a no-trespass list, which led to the rape and murder of a woman in an apartment complex.
• A female guest at a hotel property who was sexually assaulted in her room after another guest obtained a key from hotel staff.
• A case involving a mother and her two children who were held at gunpoint, and the mother was sexually assaulted in her car while parked in a hotel garage.
• A plaintiff who was a victim of robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and shot with a deadly weapon, resulting in severe permanent injuries, including paralysis, at an apartment complex.
• A couple whose daughter was abducted from the parking garage at her place of employment, taken to her bank to withdraw funds, then raped and stabbed to death.
• Under-age siblings who were detained and starved by their father at a residential hotel, resulting in the death of one of the children.
• A premises and product case against a fitness gym and equipment manufacturer involving a plaintiff who claimed TBI when improperly maintained exercise equipment broke and fell on his head.
• A plaintiff who slipped on a freshly waxed floor in the hospital and claimed permanent disabilities and total inability to work.
• A department store employee, who slipped and fell in the food court of the mall where she worked, and claimed it left her with severe chronic pain and psychological struggles, including suicidal behaviors.
• A lawsuit involving a customer who collided with a delivery pallet in a grocery store, and claimed extensive permanent injuries including a traumatic brain injury.
• A sexual assault on the plaintiff by another resident in their rental complex owned and managed by the defendants.

Trial Behavior Consulting has decades of experience in researching and consulting on product liability litigation, including serial litigation, and it is one of our biggest practice areas. We have extensive experience dealing with a wide range of cases and high exposure cases involving wrongful deaths, catastrophic injuries, mesothelioma, cancer, traumatic brain injuries, tumors, fractures, amputations, paralysis, soft tissue injuries and claims of PTSD.

In serial litigation, it is critical to get systematic feedback from jurors. We routinely collect and analyze feedback from jurors by conducting mock trials and focus groups as well as shadow juries and post-trial juror interviews. We use this information to create strategic refinements and real-time responses to changes in plaintiffs’ approach. Our extensive database on juror attitudes also provides us with a wealth of information for future projects.

Representative Product Liability Matters:

Asbestos: As a preferred provider for the Asbestos Claims Facility in the 1980’s, we conducted some of the earliest research for the primary manufacturers, worked on over 150 trials, and developed a trial manual summarizing our findings. Since then, we have continued to work on variety of cases from high dose to low dose, and friction to workplace exposure.

Drug, Pharmaceutical & Medical Device: Our experience includes anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, birth control implants and pills, cold remedies, colonoscopy products, diabetes medications, non-prescription supplements, pain killers, tobacco, hip implants, knee implants, spinal implants, pain pumps, surgical devices and ophthalmic instruments.

Food: We have worked on contamination cases involving apple juice (E. coli), pet food (Methionine) and jam (unsealed jars), as well as claims of choking hazards involving meatballs, hotdogs and candy products.

Household Goods: Assisting manufacturers of ovens, deep fryers, blenders, teapots, space heaters, home alarms, surge protectors, candles, infant slings, child car seats, ladders, pools, drains, windows, and other building materials.

Industrial & Workplace: Cases involving heavy equipment, lumber machinery, welders, wood chippers, safety gloves, hazmat storage tanks, elevators, degaussing equipment, freight doors, tanker to gas pump funneling, and mortar weaponry.

Sports, Recreational & Hunting Equipment: Our experience includes gym equipment, baseball bats, helmet-defect cases stemming from biking, motorcycling, football and wakeboarding accidents, as well as defective firearms, holsters, masks and ballistic shields.

Transportation: We have consulted on a wide range of product cases for automakers, including Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Daewoo, Volvo, Maserati, and over 100 of cases for BMW. For parts suppliers, we have worked on cases involving tires, seat belts, air bags, floor mats, accelerators, and other parts. Additionally, we have worked on cases involving boats/watercraft, outboard motors, FEMA trailers, helicopters, airplanes, and numerous trucking cases involving defective guardrails, tank explosions, drive shafts and other claims of product failure.

We have extensive experience in medical, legal and accounting malpractice litigation. We focus on helping the professionals accused of malpractice tell a compelling and understandable story that helps jurors put their conduct into perspective.

Medical Malpractice

We have helped hundreds of healthcare providers and institutions with malpractice claims in venues across the country, including hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, nursing homes and individual doctors and nurses. We conduct jury research to help trial teams develop key themes and graphics for trial. We also help prepare healthcare providers for deposition and trial to ensure they come across as authentic, competent and compelling, and deliver key messages in terms that jurors can comprehend.

Representative Medical Malpractice Matters:

• A claim that a misplaced epidural led a patient to develop permanent paralysis.
• A claim that a hospital was slow to diagnose a rare, flesh-eating bacteria, causing the patient’s leg to be amputated.
• A claim that a child obtained cerebral palsy due to excessive force applied to the mother during childbirth.
• A claim that an elective plastic surgery procedure led to permanent disfigurement.

Legal Malpractice

We have worked on a number of legal malpractice cases and have dealt with claims for suborning perjury from the client, failure to use a causation expert, inadequate trial strategy, working outside an area of expertise, failure to get permission or waiver for possible conflicts, failure to file for foreign patent rights, covering up the risks of going to trial and overstating the chances of winning, and failure to file in a timely manner.

These cases are typically complex, because they often involve retrying an underlying dispute. We help lawyers communicate effectively that they advocated their client’s interests, and met the standard of care required in the legal profession. We help defendants highlight transparent communication and consultation with their clients. This helps put plaintiff’s complaints about their attorney’s conduct in context, and allows jurors to critically examine their allegations.

Representative Legal Malpractice Matters:

• A claim that a large law firm overbilled a client and did not provide adequate representation resulting in the loss of a business deal.
• A claim that a law firm did not provide adequate representation to a client during a real estate development deal.
• A complex series of legal malpractice cases over failure to advise a group of homeowners of all their legal options in a dispute against the developer of luxury residential properties in Hawaii, and allegations of collusion with the developer.

Accounting Malpractice

Accounting cases often contain esoteric concepts that are difficult for jurors to understand. We help simplify complex accounting practices, and identify case-specific conduct that highlights how the accounting professionals acted in their client’s best interests, and met the standard of care in their field.

Representative Accounting Malpractice Matters:

• A claim that a major bank knew about and perpetuated fraudulent practices of an individual investor.
• A claim that a major accounting firm knowingly provided investors with illegal off-shore tax shelters.

We’ve worked on a large number of securities cases in the wake of a variety of serious financial downturns and scandals, including the Savings and Loan crash, the Dot-Com Boom and bust, the 2008 mortgage fraud collapse, and high tech stock grant backdating. Our trial tactics continuously evolve with the complex landscape of securities cases. Our national work has been at the cutting edge for both plaintiffs and defendants, helping clients navigate the changing securities landscape.

We have successfully dealt with juror claims including cancer, fear of cancer, pollution, diminution of property value and property damage, and medical monitoring. Our consultants have created winning tactics for dealing with the challenges that arise from juror anxiety about cancer risks and exposure to toxic substances.

Since many toxic tort cases are serial litigation, we have been afforded the opportunity to create unique, successful strategies. We’ve had extensive experience developing persuasive themes, company stories and demonstratives, and preparing experts for effective state-of-the-art and scientific testimony. We have also identified characteristics that are associated with high damage jurors, low damage jurors, defense jurors and stealth jurors.

We work to help level the playing field by training counsel in achieving effective cause challenges. As a result of our training, rates for getting cause challenges granted increase from 30% to 50%.

One notable success involved a case with several thousand plaintiffs in West Virginia. Jurors had to determine a punitive damages multiplier, which was to be applied to any compensatory damages awarded in subsequent trials. Our client was the lone defendant who did not settle before trial. Due to our assistance, the jury came back with a multiplier of ten cents on the dollar, which is by far the lowest verdict ever awarded in this type of case.

Trial Behavior Consulting has been involved in cases with a wide variety of toxic substances, including:

• Hexavalent chromium
• Cadmium
• Beryllium
• Arsenic
• Lead
• Asbestos
• Mold
• PCE
• MTBE
• Dioxin
• MEK
• TCE
• Diesel fuel
• Chlorinated hydrocarbons

We have a strong white collar crime practice, including variety of cases involving allegations of accounting fraud, options backdating, and securities trading fraud.

We have extensive experience consulting on high stakes criminal cases around the country. We have worked on a variety of challenging criminal trials against both corporations and individuals, including the only two federal death penalty trials in California in the last 20 years. In addition, we have worked on capital cases in Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana and California.

Antitrust

American Medical Response vs. Paramedics Plus
Keker and Van Nest
Superior Court, Alameda County, CA

Health Care Service Corp vs. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., et al.
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
U.S. District Court, Washington, DC

Rambus vs. Micron Technology & Hynix Semiconductor
O’Melveny & Myers
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

Tableware Antitrust Litigation
Jones Day
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

Webb vs. Mikohn, et al.
Nixon & Vanderhye PC
U.S. District Court, Jackson, MS

Automotive & Common Carriers

Albert, et al. vs. Satellite Management, et al.
Cihogoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

Priest vs. Safety-Kleen
Tatum, Atkinson & Lively, PLCC
County Court, Wake County, NC

Swift-Wilson vs. City of Richmond
Walsworth, Franklin, Bevin & McCall
Superior Court, Contra Costa County, CA

Class Actions

Ashby vs. Farmers Insurance
Rives LLP & Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
U.S. District Court, Portland, OR

Bartek, et al. vs. The State of Alaska
Delaney, Wiles, hayes, Gerety, Ellis & Young, Inc.
County Court, Matanuska-Susitna County, AK

Complex Commercial and Business Disputes

AKD/AAD Constructors vs. Tutor-Saliba Corporation, et al.
Castle & Lax
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

AKT vs. Charles Summers
Downey Brand
Superior Court, Sacramento County, CA

Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda
Dang & Trachuk
Superior Court, Alameda County, CA

Cooper, et al. vs. Chapman University
Law Offices of Jennifer L. Keller
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

DeLage Landen Financial Services, Inc. vs. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.
Fox & Spillane
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Echelon Group, LLC vs. San Miguel Associates, et al.
Jones Day
Superior Court, San Francisco County, CA

El Dorado Irrigation District vs. Traylor Brothers
McKenna, Long & Aldridge
U.S. District Court, Sacramento, CA

Gramercy Warehoue Funding vs. Cupertino Square
Greenberg Traurig
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, CA

Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez
Downey Brand
Superior Court, Stanislaus County, CA

Hub City vs. City of Compton
Goodstein & Berman
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Konvitz vs. Matte
O’Neill, Lysaght & Sun, LLP
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA

R4 Holdings & Hill Intl. vs. Tickets.com
Snell & Wilmer
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

Redwood Christian Schools vs. County of Alameda
Keker & Van Nest LLP
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

SPM vs. Toshiba Machine
Kelly, hart & Hallman, PC
County Court, Tarrant County, TX

Steven Bochco Productions vs. 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, et al.
O’Neill, Lysaght & Sun, LLP
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Wade vs. Diamite Corporation
Berliner, Cohen & Biagini
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, CA

Wimar Tahoe Corporation vs. Park Cattle Company
Downey Brand LLP
County Court, Douglas County, NV

Construction Defect

Cammel vs. SJD Partners
Lorber, Greenfield, Beddoe, Polito & Pengilly
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

San Jose Construction vs. South Bay Construction
Sweeney, Mason, Wilson & Bosomworth
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, CA

Eminent Domain

The Colonies vs. San Bernardino County
Timken Johnson Hwang LLP
Superior Court, San Bernardino County, CA

Employment

Ajayi vs. Jatoft-Foti Insurance Agency
DeMory & Grigg
Superior Court, Contra Costa County, CA

Annie Hall vs. Bank One
Baker & Hostetler
County Court, Franklin County, OH

Fillipini vs. Social Security Administration
U.S. Attorney’s Office
U.S. District Court, San Jose, CA

Frazier vs. UPS
Paul Hastings
Superior Court, Fresno County, CA

Gensler vs. Vargas
Millstein & Associates
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Levingston vs. Albertson’s
Rogers, Joseph, O’Donnell & Phillips
Superior Court, Alameda County, CA

Linda Sisk vs. A & A Tools Rental & Sales, Inc.
Epstein, Becker & Green
U.S. District Court, Sacramento, CA

Maria Guadalupe Garcia, et al., vs. Russel Cosmetics, Inc.
Silver & Freedman
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

McKinney Brown vs. Blakemore and Kaplan
Zimmerman & Walker, LLP
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Natividad vs. Prison Health
Littler Mendelson PC
Superior Court, Alameda County, CA

Insurance

Executive Management vs. Ticor Title Company
Gerrard Cox and Larsen
County Court, Clark County, NV

Liberty National vs. Chicago Title (Fidelity)
Hennelly & Grossfeld
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Lisa Trapana vs. Prudential Insurance
Law Offices of Patrick J. Sullivan
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

Rosenberg vs. Aetna
Shernoff, Bidart & Darras, LLP
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Intellectual Property

Adams vs. Winbond and ASUS
Cooley, Godward and Kornish
U.S. District Court, Utah

Callaway vs. Acushnet
Howrey LLP
U.S. District Court, Delaware

Chiron vs. Genentech
Keker & Van Nest LLP
U.S. District Court, Sacramento, CA

CollegeNET vs. XAP
DLA Piper
U.S. District Court, Portland, OR

Flyin J., Inc. vs. Pistachio, et al.
Coudert Brothers
U.S. District Court, Fresno, CA

Fujitsu vs. Belkin, D-Link and Netgear
Reed Smith
U.S. District Court, San Jose, CA

Gen-Probe, Inc. vs. Vysis, Inc.
Cooley Godward
U.S. District Court, San Diego, CA

Harris vs. Ericsson
Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White LLP
U.S. District Court, Dallas, TX

Hoffman-LaRoche vs. Promega Corp.
Michael, Best & Freidrich
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

Manny Joel, M.D. vs. Valley Medical Care Center
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy, LLP
Superior Court, Alameda County, CA

Medtronic vs. AGA Medical
Merchant and Gould, PC
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

Memry Corporation vs. Kentucky Oil
Luce Forward
U.S. District Court, San Jose, CA

Mitchell vs. Intel
Keker & Van Nest LLP
U.S. District Court, Tyler, TX

Oracle vs. Google
Keker & Van Nest LLP
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

Personal Injury

Andonie vs. City Limits
Rankin, Sproat, Mires, Beaty & Reynolds
Superior Court, Sacramento County, CA
(negligence)

Barnett vs. Richman
Buckner, Alani, Khouri, Chavos & Mirkovich
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

Cousins vs. DelHaize America, Inc. and Food Lion, LLC
Wilcox & Savage; Barr, Murman & Tonelli, P.A.
County Court, Richmond County, VA
(negligence)

England vs. Swinerton
Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP
Superior Court, San Francisco County, CA
(construction)

Erman vs. India Cuisine Restaurant
Betts Patterson Mines
County Court, King County, WA

Mora vs. Cuprum
Hennelly & Grossfeld
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA
(wrongful death)

Navarro vs. Ecology Auto Parts
Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Superior Court, San Diego County, CA

Ryvkin vs. Terry York Motor Cars
Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA
(wrongful death)

White vs. LA Indian Oaks LP/AIMCO-LP, Inc.
Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA
(mold)

Premises Liability

Denise Rivera vs. Davies Medical Center
Long & Levit
Superior Court, San Francisco County, CA

Happe vs. Guard Systems
Kern & Gonzalez
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Palofox vs. El Rincon Tarasco Restaurant
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley
Superior Court, San Mateo County, CA

Sierra Charles vs. Mountain View Mobile Homes Estates, et al.
Yukevich Cavanaugh
Superior Court, San Bernardino County, CA

Product Liability

Adam Mintz, et al. vs. WWC Corporation
Law Ofices of Jeffrey Benice
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Advanced Brands vs. Alkar-RapidPak
Seyfarth Shaw, LLC
U.S. District Court, Northern Iowa, IA

Baez vs. L & L Machinery
Yukevich Cavanaugh
Superior Court, San Bernardino County, CA

Baker vs. Paccar
Murchison & Cumming
Superior Court, San Bernardino County, CA

Bradley Bishop vs. CertainTeed Corporation
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Superior Court, San Francisco County, CA

Conwed vs. Union Carbide Corporation
Foley & Lardner
U.S. District Court, St. Paul, MN
(asbestos)

Cox vs. R.J. Reynolds
King & Spalding
Circuit Court of Florida, Alachua County, FL

Duke vs. R.J. Reynolds
King & Spalding
U.S. District Court, Jacksonville, FL

Federico Torres, et al., vs. Pro Tire, Inc., et al.
Bacalski, Ottoson & Dube, LLP
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Fernandez vs. Union Carbide Corporation
Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell
County Court, Dade County, FL
(asbestos)

Gallagher vs. Union Carbide Corporation
DeHay & Elliston
County Court, Travis County, TX
(asbestos)

Gersten vs. Gibbs
Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Superior Court, Alameda County, CA
(asbestos)

Grimes vs. Electromatic
Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
County Court, Anne Arundel County, MD

Koranda vs. Union Carbide Corporation
DeHay & Elliston
County Court, Dallas County, TX

Lyndon Wright vs. Forest River Inc., et al.
Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse
U.S. District Court, New Orleans, LA

Mack vs. R.J. Reynolds
King & Spalding
Circuit Court of Florida, Alachua County, FL

Martinez vs. Taylor Machine Works
Murchison & Cumming
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

McCall vs. TODCO & Trailmobile
Kirtland & Packard
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

McKenzie vs. Union Carbide Corporation
Powers & Frost, LLP
County Court, Harris County, TX

McNamara vs. Bondex
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA

Ojeda vs. R.J. Reynolds
King & Spalding
Circuit Court of Florida, Miami-Dade County, FL

Robin Listman vs. Outboard Marine Corporation
Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer
County Court, Washoe County, NV

Stephanie Rodriguez, et al. vs. General Dynamics Armament
Yukevich Cavanaugh, LLP
U.S. District Court, Honolulu, HI

Tann vs. Toyo USA and County Coach
Lyddan Law Group
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

Professional and Medical Malpractice

Carillo vs. Edgar
Sedgewick, Detert, Moran & Arnold
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

Commodity Futures Trading Commission vs. Delay, et al.
Baker & Hostetler
U.S. District Court, Lincoln, NE

Carol Francis vs. Jay Standerfer, M.D.
Sanders & Parks, PC
County Court, Maricopa County, AZ

Mathieu vs. Bilodeau
Randall & Danskin
County Court, Spokane County, WA

Shartsis Friese LLP vs. JP Morgan
Shartsis Friese LLP
U.S. District Court, San Francisco, CA

U.S. vs. Banco Industrial de Venezuela
Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, PA
Superior Court, Orange County, CA

White Collar and Criminal

People vs. K. Hoss
Law Offices of Danny Davis
Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA

People vs. Leticia Castro
Law Offices of Glaser, Damone & Schroeder
Superior Court, Long Beach, CA

People vs. Lily Gonzalez and Roger Ruiz
Law Offices of Glaser, Damone & Schroeder
Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA

People vs. Raul Ramirez
Michael Artan
Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA

Peregrine Trials:
US vs. Lenz, Reichner, Towle and Stulac
US vs. Towle and Stulac
Coole Godward Kronish LLP
Superior Court, San Diego, CA

Other

De La Rosa, Fong & Mendoza vs. City of San Jose
O’Brian & Kelleher
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, CA
(Defamation)

Estate of Winston Caballo vs. Armando Fernandez Larios
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
U.S. District Court, Miami, FL
(Pro-Bono Alien Claims Torts Act)

EHOC vs. Gundaker Real Estate Co., Inc.
Vatterott, Schaffar & Dolan, PC
U.S. District Court, St. Louis, MO
(Civil Rights – Discrimination)

Sorensen vs. Belmont Hills
O’Connor, Cohn, Dillon & Barr
Superior Court, San Mateo County, CA