Miller v Doe (M v A)
$95,000 Settlement
Our client filed a complaint against defendant. Defendant owned, operated, and managed our client’s premises and stairways. Defendants maintained and caused the stairways to be painted in way that caused them to excessively slippery especially when they are wet. Defendant was aware of the prior falls on these steps and that there is a clear and present danger to residents and visitors. Defendant also chose to ignore warnings and complaints about the dangers the stairs caused. Defendant’s actions and inactions are the sole cause of our client injuries due to the slip and fall incident using those stairs.
The case settled for $95,000
Moe v Allstate ( M v A)
$225,000 Settlement
Our client was stopped at a red-light intersection where defendant was driving immediately behind our client. The defendant was careless and negligent, failing to pay attention to upcoming traffic which was immobile at an intersection and resulted in defendant colliding into our client’s vehicle.
Policy Limit Settlement for $225,000
On top Paid by third party
Allen v Soto (A v S)
$450,000 Settlement
Auto- Accident where defendant rear-ended our clients causing personal injuries and property damage to our client
Settled for $450,000
Stringer v Mumma (S v M)
$500,000 Settlement
Defendant negligently and recklessly collided her vehicle into our client’s causing significant personal injuries including, traumatic brain injury, fractured vertebra, bruised lung, and numerous cuts on both elbows and shins.
Wrongful death and auto-accident case
Settled for $500,000
Crespo v Mercury Insurance Group (C v MIG)
$100,000 Settlement
Vehicle-1 traveling southbound on Shenandoah St Collided with vehicle 2 which was Westbound on Olympic Blvd in Lane 3. Force of the impact caused our client to be ejected from Vehicle 2 and collide with roadway.
Settled for $100,000
Mercury Insurance Personal Injury Claim
Johnston v Thomas (J v T)
$335,000 Settlement
Defendant failed to slow down behind our client’s vehicle causing Defendant to rear-end our clients and resulting in injuries and damages to our client’s vehicles
Settled for $335,000
Huitink, Johannes
$38,195 Settlement
State Farm Personal Injury Claim
Settled for $38,195
Hernandez v Do
$335,000 Settlement
Defendant failed to stop and struck the back of our client’s vehicle causing injuries and damages to our client’s vehicle
Settled for $335,000
Garcia, Joaquin (G v F)
$100,000 Settlement
Opposing party pick-up truck T-boned our client’s Volkswagen Golf GTI sending our client’s vehicle up and over the curb, launching glass from the driver’s side window directly into our client’s face. Our client suffered multiple deep gashes and painful glass shards imbedded into his left cheek, temple, and eye are for several weeks.
Personal injury and property damage claim
AAA Insurance Policy Limit
Settled for $100,000
Hasenstab v Hagopian (H v H)
$15,000 Settlement
Our client was heading east on Alicia Parkway, city of Mission Viejo. She was driving within the speed limit on the number one lane on Alicia Parkway as she was approaching the intersection Marguerite Parkway. Opposing party was at a read light due North on Marguerite Parkway when suddenly opposing party entered the intersection causing our client to crash her car into opposing party.
Settled for $15,000 from State Farm Insurance
Ms. Hasenstab’s UIM Insurance settled form $15,000
Parker v MM Enterprises USA
Parker v MM Enterprises USA
Plaintiff is the former chief financial officer of the company MedMen Inc. Our defendant Bierman is the co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer of MedMen. Our client, defendant Andrew Modlin is the co-founder and former Chief Brand Officer of MedMen. Plaintiff resigned a CFO of MedMen Inc in November 2018. This case arises out of a January 2019 complaint filed by Plaintiff against Defendants MM Enterprises USA, LLC and our clients, Bierman and Modlin. Plaintiff alleges that our client’s allegedly conspired to have him as CFO enter into an employment contact. Plaintiff also alleges that our clients conspired so that the contract was not honored and did this in some effort to deny Plaintiff long term incentive plan benefits and other benefits he would have received if he had not quit.
After a month long trial, the jury found MedMen did not constructively discharge or breach the contract of the former CFO, awarding no money to the executive after plaintiff sought a payout of over $24 million. The jury also concluded that our clients and company’s founder did not commit promissory fraud in hiring plaintiff.
Albert v Skjerven Gegelman (A v SG)
Albert v Skjerven Gegelman
Personal injury case arising from an automobile accident that occurred at the intersection of Culver Boulevard and Lincoln in Culver City. Our clients were driving northbound on Culver Boulevard and had the right-of-way when Defendant who was traveling southbound on Culver Boulevard made a left turn in front of our clients and collided into our client’s vehicle. Defendant admits she caused the accident but disputes the nature and extend of our client’s injuries.
After going to trial, the verdict came back and our clients were awarded $175k. The settlement broken down our client Jeff received $153k, Liza received $15k, and Jack received $7,500.
Johnson v Knapp (J v K)
Johnson v Knapp (J v K)
Plaintiff filed a complaint of damages against our client, the ex-wife of his deceased business partner complaining that our client had alleged 50% community property interest with her late husband BK in the company. We were able to beat the plaintiff’s entire complaint because all of Plaintiff’s causes of actions were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any facts sufficient enough to constitute specific causes of action against our client, improperly alleges causes of action that are ambiguous, and three improperly alleges causes of action that unintelligible.
Huang v Kuan (H v K)
Huang v Kuan (H v K)
Our client entered into a residential lease agreement in September of 2016 to continue to rent property from the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sent our client a notice to quit and vacate the property due to failure to pay rent and material breach of the agreement re: subleasing. Per the lease agreement, an agreement between the parties were made that would allow our client to use the property for short term rentals so that the “partnership” would allow the plaintiff to collect premium payment from our client. Our client would have not rented the property out without the plaintiff’s agreement. Plaintiff in July of 2016 gave our client a 60-at notice of changes oft terms in the rental agreement that increased the rent. In the same month, plaintiff decided to that let the girlfriend/ finance of her son to use the property as a rental on Airbnb to make money. 11 days after serving the rent increase notice, plaintiff served a 60-day notice to move out. Plaintiff allowed our client to use the property until May 2017 on the condition our client pay a rent amount higher than the 60-day rent increase notice in July 2016. After May 2017, Plaintiff contacted our client and stated she wanted to continue the partnership. Our client agreed to do so and used her own financial resources to invest and repair the property. However, plaintiff began to harass our client and our client moved out in September 2017.
The court denied the Motions for Sanctions filed by plaintiff and granted our client requests and imposes $1,800 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel jointly.
The court also overruled the second and third causes of action in the cross-complaint. The demurrer is sustained as to the first and fourth causes of action in the cross-complaint with the leave to amend. The motion to strike portions re punitive damages and attorney's fees is granted to leave to amend.
Beard v Sun (B v S)
$650,000 Settlement
Defense verdict
The dispute arises out of a four-year relationship between our client and opposing party, which ended in 2011 on bad terms. Defendant acquired title to our client’s house and took out a $300,000 second loan on the property with her sister. The defendant claimed that she gave about $200,000 to our client in cash as loan and has not been repaid. For a while, our client was living on the property until defendant evicted him from the home, he gave away to her. She now owed his home and has cashed his automobiles and motorcycle selling them both. She also sold the ring that was given to her by our client during the beginning of their relationship. Our client was basically homeless and lost everything, he was living in his office and had no means of transportation. Defendant took advantage of our client’s advanced age and mental frailty. Defendant used our client’s weakness of mind to induce him into consenting to give her his home and all of his personal belongings.
Arbitration in favor of our client and was awarded rescission of the April 1, 2008, Quitclaim deed to his Brookline home, restoration of Beard’s possession, title and interest in the Brookline residence, monetary damages in the amount of $375,000, and attorney's fees and costs according to proof.
W v City of LA
$95,000 Settlement
Our client has been the owner of the property for over twenty years. During that time, defendant planted Ficus trees on the residential parkway adjacent to our client’s property. Defendants made little effort to properly maintain the trees planted on the sideways. They even failed to perform minimal pruning of the limbs or create root barriers causing the tress to grow unchecked causing extensive damage to the property. The trees planted by defendant wrapped around our client’s sewage lines. This blocked the lines, so the sewage backed up into our client’s property and flooded the property. Defendant failed to take action to remedy the problems associate with its planting of the trees and they refused to allow our client to have the tress removed.
Settled for $95,000
A v NC
$300k Settlement
Home Mold damage
Civil Verdict of $300k
Westly v B
Westly v B
Defending constructive Trust Case
Defense Verdict
H v R
H v R
Got complaint Dismissed
Crenshaw v Long Beach Memorial (C v LBM)
1.3 Million
Verdict of 1.3 Million Dollars
Gomez v Juarez
Gomez v Juarez
The civil harassment rises from when respondent lunged at our client and placed him chokehold, he started striking him in the face and arms repeatedly. Respondent then created a false police report telling them that our client beat up their grandmother which is not true. Respondent has created a hostile living situation and refused to leave. He has physically assaulted our client and has made false allegations towards our client. Respondent has also broken into our clients bedroom and children’s bedrooms.
Civil Harassment Restraining Order granted against Respondent.
C v W
C v W
Got mom full sole custody and restraining order granted against opposing party
K v T
K v T
Opposing party filed restraining order against our client, we beat their restraining order, filed one against them and got it granted
T v S
T v S
Opposing party filed restraining order against our client, we beat their restraining order, filed one against them and got it granted
P v L
P v L
Opposing party filed restraining order against our client, we beat their restraining order, filed one against them and got it granted
B v B
B v B
Sole custody granted and home awarded in lieu of support
N v N
N v N
Sole custody granted and home awarded in lieu of support
M v M
M v M
Restraining Order filed against Opposing Party and granted
Opposing party sexually abused the kids, since he is in jail, we were able to get the entirely of retirement account to our client
G v M
G v M
Pro Bono Case
Full custody of her sons, opposing party is not allowed visitation except with express permission of the judge or our client
R v R
R v R
Separated for 12 years and the court granted that the petitioner shall pay our client equalization payments for the real property
P v K
P v K
With the help of Minor Counsel’s, we got sole custody for our client and opposing party agreed to ever other weekend for visitation
O v P
O v P
DVRO Granted against opposing party
O Conservatorship
O Conservatorship
In December 2015, a petition was filed to obtain a conservatorship over our client’s mother who suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease. When our client would go to visit his mother, it was never mentioned by the conservator that a petition was filed. In June 2016, our client discovered that the conservator obtained conservatorship over his mother and that she failed to notify next of kin and has lied to the courts when she told the courts she had done so or attempted to. The conservator filed a restraining order against our client on behalf of his mother for allegations of emotional stress and abuse, the order was denied.
The Petition to Appoint Conservator of Estate filed by Conservator is denied without prejudice and granted to our clients. Our client was appointed as Successor/ Co-Conservators of the Person and Estate.
S Conservatorship
S Conservatorship
Our client filed for Petition to be appointed as conservator for his father. The current temporary conservator has been taking actions that far exceed her authority as a temporary conservator. She is taking certain actions without the requisite power or authority. She was appointed temporary conservator without providing proper notice to the proposed conservatee’s own. Proper notice was never given. It is believed that she has attempted to withdraw a significant amount of money from the proposed conservatee’s bank account(s). It is also believed that she was spending substantial sums of money on making alterations to our client’s father’s home. She also removed a substantial amount of personal belongings and had them hauled away as trash.
The petition to Appoint a Temporary Conservator filed by our client is granted. Our client is appointed as Temporary Conservator of the Person and Estate.
Engel Probate Settlement (E Probate Settlement)
$450,000 Settlement
Decedent passed away in July 2010. Our client is beneficiary under Trust and Respondent was Co-trustee of the Family Trust. Under the trust, our client was to receive to 20 acres of unimproved land in Kern County, Certain Property in Eagle County, unimproved lot in Hollywood Hills, and proceeds from the sale of property formerly owned by Decedent in Kansas City. Respondent was to receive an undeveloped lot in Arrowhead Lake, the residence in Laguna Hills, unimproved property in San Bernardino County, and about 20 acres of unimproved land in Kern County. Decedent’s wishes is the property and trust asses would be divided equally between our client and Respondent. Respondent in 2005, started to take charge of Decedent’s financial affairs. After the passing of the Decedent, our client requested accounting from Respondent. The documents provided were produced by Respondent and did not contain source documents to support such accounting, such as cancelled checks or bank statements. Respondent deducted certain expenses from the trust and has failed to fully repay Decedent for the loan. Upon Decedent’s death, the money was to be transferred and spilt evenly between our client and respondent.
Settled for $450,000
Russel Conservatorship (R Conservatorship)
R Conservatorship
The case was brough by petitioner to obtain conservatorship over our client because petitioner believes our client is in need of a conservatorship due to him suffering from psychiatric disorders. Our client’s treating doctor confirmed that he is not in need of a conservatorship. The petitioner filed this petition in order to obtain access to our client’s finances, specifically his Special Needs Trust. Petitioner has been focused on the Special Needs Trust in hopes she would financially gain from it.
The conservatorship was removed, and everything rewarded to our client.
SC v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Group
$1,400,000 Settlement
Mr. Folmer co-tried a medical malpractice case involving failure to diagnose leg clots, resulting in above the knee amputation: Initial Offer: $25,000 Verdict: $1,400,000
P v. S Company/Party Planners
$400,000 Settlement
Mr. Folmer co-tried a negligence case involving a girl who was hit with an aluminum bat at a Pinata event during a company picnic. Parties settled after plaintiff’s opening statement: Initial Offer: $50,000 Settlement: $400,000
Todaro v. Mancuso-Trust Dispute
$462,000 Settlement
Mr. Folmer represented a nephew of a man who had promised him a property after he died if the nephew took care of the property. Although the nephew took care of the property and helped with collecting rents, dealing with tenants, etc., the man changed his mind and sold the property without giving the nephew anything. There was no written agreement and the man retained three lawyers to represent him against Mr. Folmer. Mr. Folmer won the case and convinced the court that a Constructive Trust had been created entitling the nephew to the property or the proceeds from the property. Initial Offer: $30,000 Verdict: $462,000
NA v. Negligent Driver
$4,250,000 Settlement
The $4.25 million settlement was obtained due to a wrongful death claim involving a school teacher who was out on a run and was struck in a crosswalk when two drivers were road racing/road raging and one driver hit him. The negligent party's insurance company paid the policy limits and the umbrella policy after Mr. Folmer wrote them a letter demanding payment of the entire policy. The claim against the other driver is pending.