Hon. Holly J. Fujie (Ret.)

• Plaintiff claimed that he was discriminated against and refused emergency medical care at a medical center because his service dog was not allowed in the emergency room. Defendants asserted that they did not prevent plaintiff from receiving services, that the dog was not a trained service animal and that they had a compliant service animal policy that permitted service animals in its facility.

• Claim by plaintiffs that major bank had acted fraudulently and in breach of contract in handling of loan relationship with borrower later in bankruptcy. Involved issue of first impression regarding plaintiffs’ standing to claim damages based on alleged injury to a bankrupt estate,
• Plaintiff bank had been a party with another bank in participation agreements on two construction loans secured by apartment buildings. Before the buildings were completed, the lead participant bank failed and was taken over by the FDIC. Plaintiff bank sued the FDIC, claiming that it had failed to fulfill its obligations under the loan participation agreements to manage the loans.

• Plaintiffs were lenders of millions of dollars to defendant Cannabis company who allege, among other claims, breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, larceny, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and declaratory relief.
• Plaintiff sues other owners of Cannabis company for fraud alleging, among other things, that he paid $1 million in cash for an interest in the company, which the other owners deny.
• Plaintiffs sue owner of Cannabis company, claiming that part of their compensation for working for the company was an ownership interest in the company, which defendant denies.

• Plaintiffs were credit card customers of major national store chain offered promotional checks. Class action filed against store relating to the calculation of interest on amounts paid with the checks after a certain date. At issue was whether the state law of each putative class members would need to be applied to their claim as well as class standing and the statutory requirements regarding the disclosures on the checks.

• Maker of plant-based meat product sues defendant, which originally had contracted to be a manufacturing facility for plaintiff, and after the termination of that agreement began marketing its own plant-based meat product. Plaintiff sued defendant for violation of trade secrets act, breach of contract and fraud, arising from the dissolution of their business relationship by which unfair competition and fraud, which defendant denied. Plaintiff alleged health and safety issues with defendant’s manufacturing facilities, and alleged that defendant improperly developed its own product based upon information it obtained from plaintiff.
• Plaintiff, the scion of extremely wealthy family, invested in a start-up company making artificial reefs with an individual with whom he had become friendly during surfing holidays. Plaintiff alleges that he was defrauded by defendant, who misrepresented the nature of the investment. Defendant claims that he did not make any material misrepresentations and that Plaintiff was aware of the true facts at all times.
• Plaintiff sued his son and daughter-in-law for the return of hundreds of thousands of dollars of his savings which he gave to them for the establishment of a medical clinic that failed. Plaintiff claimed that defendants had made an oral promise that in return for the money, they would support him and let him live in their home for the rest of their lives.
• County sued national law firm for declaration that it did not owe legal fees to defend county employee because law firm had failed to follow required statutory procedures for being retained as counsel for the employee.
• Brother sued brother co-owner of large business, claiming mismanagement and fraud and seeking dissolution of business.

• Plaintiffs had contracted with defendant to make custom cupboards for their home. Plaintiff claimed that the work on the cabinets was substandard and sued defendant for the cost of replacing them plus the year-long period of time they were allegedly displaced from their home because of the lack of cabinets. Defendant claimed that their work was good and that plaintiffs were exaggerating their damages.
• Trucking company plaintiff alleged that defendant oil-supplier had mislabeled an oil drum, causing it to use the wrong type of oil in its trucks, causing the trucks to break and become unusable. Defendant claimed that there was no causal connection between the mislabeling and the damage and that plaintiff could not prove that it had used the oil as alleged.
• Plaintiffs were parents of a student admitted to defendant University under the Varsity Blues admissions scandal. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant committed fraud by leading them to believe that it was proper for applicants to pay large sums of money as donations to the university in consideration for admissions.
• Plaintiff entered into agreement for defendant to purchase its entire operation. Immediately before the scheduled closing, defendant had announced that it would not complete the transaction and plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Plaintiff had a large part of the market in its industry, and the sale would have had a significant impact.
• World champion boxer sued his former co-managers for breach of contract and fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that the co-managers had acted against his interest at the instigation of his agent. Plaintiff later added as a defendant an international law firm which had also represented him as a co-defendant.
• Plaintiff had an internet retail business with defendant which generated large sales that should have resulted in plaintiff being paid commissions. Defendant withheld commissions. Settlement reached based on defendant’s agreement to make installment payments which, if not made timely, could be collected directly by plaintiff.
• Plaintiff sues her sister for control of real-estate holding company created by their father, giving rise to claims of fraud and document forgery.
• Dispute between two large insurance brokers over payment of so-called bonus commissions received by insurance brokerage companies. It was significant because of the potential effect of the case on all broker commission agreements with insurance companies nationwide.

view all

• Plaintiff subcontractor on apartment project construction sued general contractor defendant for failure to pay amounts due on contract and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. Defendant filed Cross-complaint against property owner for fraud, extortion, breach of contract, abuse of process and intentional interference with contract. Property owner claimed delay costs and fraudulent billing.

• Plaintiff sued individual over allegedly false statements made about plaintiff in an email sent to county employees, alleging claims for defamation and libel per se.
• Plaintiff Cannabis company claims defamation by defendant Cannabis company’s president regarding its business operations. Defendant claims that the statements made were expressions of opinion.
• Plaintiff company sued a major entertainment studio for misrepresenting its activities and detractors in a documentary, in which the group was portrayed as a cult in which its members were forced to engage in sexual activity against their will. Defendant claimed that all matters in the document were accurately portrayed.

• Plaintiff nanny sues employer parents for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on father’s videoing of Plaintiff in shower.
• Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, sues for multi-million dollar share of sales proceeds of business.
• Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually harassed for years by supervisor/fellow employee. Defendant claims that employee’s actions were consensual and that when they were notified of the harassment by plaintiff, the employee was terminated.
• Plaintiff claims that he was harassed and discriminated against by his supervisor based upon his national origin, and that their employer wrongfully terminated him. Defendant claimed that he was neither harassed nor discriminated against and that he quit and was not terminated.
• Plaintiff claims that he was harassed and discriminated against by his supervisor based upon his tribe, which was different from the supervisor’s own, although they were from the same African country. Defendant denied that he was harassed or discriminated against by any of its employees.

• Plaintiff claims that he was entitled to a 50% share of income from business he brought into defendant company, and that he was not paid either this commission or overtime for hours he worked. Defendant asserts that no such agreement was ever made and Plaintiff was correctly compensated for all work he performed.
• Plaintiff worked as a sushi chef and claimed that he was entitled to overtime for his work. Defendant claimed that he was an exempt employee and that in any event he did not work more than 40 hours a week.
• Plaintiff worked as a grounds caretaker and was required to live in premises provided by the employer, and claimed that he was entitled to be paid for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on a minimum wage basis. Defendant claimed that he was an exempt employee, that he only entitled to be paid for hours he was actually working and that he had been paid properly.
• Plaintiff claims that she was wrongfully terminated and discriminated against by defendant based upon her disability, caused by a work accident, and also claimed that defendant failed to accommodate her disability and failed to properly interact with her. Defendant alleges that it only terminated plaintiff after she refused to return to work after being sent home for being insubordinate to her supervisor, and that it properly handled her disability.
• Plaintiff college administrator sued defendant college for wrongful termination. College defendant claimed that plaintiff’s separation from employment was proper and then went out of business, leaving insurance to cover claims.
• Plaintiff sued defendant hospital for wrongful termination, which he claimed was retaliation for whistle-blowing about unsafe conditions in the hospital. Defendant claimed that termination was proper and based upon poor performance.
• Plaintiff sued LAPD for retaliating against her for discovering and reporting that an LAPD officer should have been investigated for a cold case murder of the wife of another LAPD officer. Defendant denied that it had retaliated against her or otherwise caused her damage.
• Plaintiff alleged wage and hour violations by defendant spa which paid her only for time actually performing massage services during a 12-hour daily shift. Defendant claimed that it was entitled to pay plaintiff only for work performed.
• Plaintiff sued her employer, a county department, for discrimination, harassment, retaliation failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, arising from a medical disability. Defendant denied that it acted improperly in handling her medical issues.
• Action for injunctive relief and damages relating to enforcement of non-competition provision in employment/stock purchase contracts. Main issue is enforceability in California and Illinois of different contract provisions which appeared to be subject to different states’ laws. Dispute involved two of the largest insurance brokers in the country, and had a parallel action in state court in Illinois.
• Plaintiff was an employee of a major nonprofit advocacy group, asserting physical and personal injuries arising from her employment and right to severance payment. Settlement involved significant insurance coverage issues and negotiation of division of settlement among claims.

view all

• Plaintiff had appeared on the television show of a well-known daytime talk-show host which purports to provide a forum for discussion of mental health issues. Plaintiff claimed that the show’s host had improperly induced her to appear on his show by appearing to be sympathetic to her situation, while secretly planning to make fun of her on the show for having delusional ideas about being able to read minds and for having a relationship with a much younger man while purporting to help him with mental health issues.
• Two actors who had starred in a famous motion picture in the 1960’s during their teens sued the director and the studio, alleging that they had been used for child pornography by being tricked into appearing nude in brief scenes of the movie. Defendants claimed that there was no such child pornography in the film.

• Lawsuit arising from controversy over assessments on property by plaintiff homeowners’ association. Calculation of assessments was changed, greatly increasing the assessment against defendant which owned a large apartment complex. Issue was interpretation of assessment billing policy. Settlement reached based upon conveyance of partial parcel to plaintiff by defendant so that no assessment was required to be paid.

• Plaintiff famous rock group had planned a tour of South America which was cancelled due to Covid-19. Plaintiff sued its insurance company for its failure to cover its losses under a concert cancellation, abandonment and non-appearance insurance policy for the tour. Insurance company claimed that coverage was excluded by various policy provisions, including that the cancellation of the tour was not covered because the cancellation was caused by a Communicable Disease, which was a specifically excluded cause of loss.
• Plaintiffs had experienced property damage caused by water intrusion after a storm. Defendant insurance company made certain repairs but claimed that the water intrusion was caused by uncovered wind-driven rain.
• Plaintiff insured sued defendant insurance company for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based upon defendant’s allegedly late payment of insurance benefits. Defendant claimed that it handled in claim in a reasonable manner and that plaintiff was not damaged.
• Major insurance company sued third party administrator for handling of workers’ compensation claim. Plaintiff was the excess insurance carrier and defendant had approved back surgery for the claimant, who was rendered paraplegic by medical malpractice during surgery. This was a case of first impression regarding whether a third-party administrator had a duty to an excess carrier.
• Insurer issued an insurance policy to major manufacturer which was reinsured by international insurer. A claim was filed on the policy and the insurer notified the international insurer’s broker, which did not respond. Issue of first impression as to whether a company was required to prove to its reinsurer that there was coverage for an underlying claim under a reinsurance contract and that the settlement was reasonable.

• Lawsuits arising from coverage of approximately $7 billion in losses due to Hurricane Katrina. Multiple levels of coverage for multiple properties were at issue.
• Lawsuits arising from a Superfund site in the Inland Empire. Damage occurred over decades and liability alleged against multiple owners and users, with many levels of insurance coverage with policies involving different exclusions and coverage grants over all those years, with many policies missing.
• A $95 million fraud was perpetrated upon thousands of individual investors who believed they were investing in viatical settlements (the purchase of insurance policies of terminally ill people at a discount). In fact, there were no insurance policies. The receiver for the escrow company filed suit against the Escrow Agents’ Fidelity Corporation for coverage of the loss and also acted to recover from all other potential sources, including legal malpractice insurance.

view all

• Plaintiffs sued past and present owners of various apartment buildings in which they resided, claiming habitability problems, including poor maintenance and insects. Defendants claimed lack of responsibility for the buildings and that the building were properly maintained.
• Plaintiff was a tenant of a portion of a house owned by defendant. Plaintiff claimed habitability problems and wrongful eviction, and that defendant had turned off the hot water in his apartment. Defendant claimed a right to evict and that plaintiff was responsible for the maintenance of the entire building as part of his rent.
• Plaintiff was a long-time tenant of a rent-controlled apartment building. He claimed that defendant owner had wrongfully evicted him by claiming that his relative was moving into the unit. Defendant claimed that he was planning to demolish the building and that it had properly evicted plaintiff.

• Plaintiff group filed action against city, arising from disputes over the city’s regulation of billboards in violation of a successful ballot proposition limiting installation of billboards within a city. The city cross-complained for declaratory and related relief seeking right to remove billboards.
• Plaintiff private entity seeks declaratory relief as to validity of proceedings by City Council under the Brown Act, relating to closed session of city council.
• County sued its Sheriff to compel him to appear before its Board of Supervisors to testify about his handling of Covid-19 in its jails. Sheriff initially refused to testify until a deal was brokered in the case.

• Multiple related cases in which plaintiffs allege that they were sexually abused by school employee while in elementary school.
• Plaintiff was injured in a car accident while driving his girlfriend’s Mercedes Benz. He sued defendant, who admitted liability but disputed the extent of his injuries, as evidenced by his having gone mogul-skiing after the accident.
• Plaintiff, a young child, was severely bitten in the face by a dog with a history of biting people. Defendant claimed that plaintiff’s mother was partially responsible, as she urged the child to interact with the dog to overcome the child’s fears, even though the child had been frightened of the dog on an earlier encounter.
• Survivors of resident of nursing home during beginning of Covid-19 pandemic sued defendant nursing home for failing to adequately warn residents of the dangers of Covid-19 and protect them from the virus. Defendant claims that it acted properly and was not negligent.
• An actor complained about excessive noise coming from the property of her next-door neighbor, the CEO of a major corporation, who responded with a loud, expletive-filled rant which was the actor recorded. The actor sent the recording to TMZ which aired it, allegedly resulting in the CEO’s bonus being substantially reduced by his company. The CEO sued the actor for illegally recording his voice, for emotional distress and other damages, and defendant actor counter-sued for emotional distress.

• Plaintiffs sued their next-door neighbor, a major pop star, for harassment such as screaming, threatening and throwing eggs at her house. Defendant denied the harassment.
• Plaintiff was an influencer who claimed that she had been groped and assaulted by an employee of defendant nightclub, and that her subsequently being charged with assault on a police officer was caused by defendant. Defendant claimed that no such groping or assault took place, that she did not make those allegations until long into the lawsuit and that it acted properly because she had been extremely intoxicated and uncooperative with security staff.
• Plaintiff sued a major rock star for allegedly sexually assaulting her on a helicopter, which defendant denied.
• Plaintiffs were passengers in a car driven by a ride-share driver who got into an accident. Plaintiffs, who were visiting from a foreign country, sued the ride-share company as well as the driver, claiming that the cause of the accident was the company’s GPS system, which allegedly directed the driver to make a dangerous street crossing.
• Plaintiff alleged hate crime causes of action against religious school based on her being transgender. Plaintiff was shot by a security guard employed by the school. School admitted the shooting but claimed that she was shot because he perceived a danger to the school.

view all

• Sister and brother inherited equal interests in Beverly Hills home. Sister had moved from out of state to take care of mother when she was living in the house and upon mother’s death continued to live in house which brother wished to sell so the proceeds could be divided. Negotiated settlement that included determination of cost of move-out and new apartment for defendant, with moving arrangements made by and paid for directly by plaintiff with timetable for move-out and circumstances of sale and division of contested property.
• Two sons of deceased major Hollywood star had been litigating over her possessions for over ten years in multiple international jurisdictions. Resolved all issues by suggesting a process for division acceptable to both sons.

• Plaintiff alleged legal malpractice against his lawyer for failure to properly handle transactions related to the construction of a major shopping mall around his motel. He claimed that due to defendant’s actions, he suffered a multi-million-dollar loss on a contract. Defendant claimed that he acted properly, and that plaintiff was misrepresenting the situation regarding the transactions.
• $20 million professional malpractice action against insurance broker for allegedly not obtaining proper insurance coverage for injury to lead actor in major motion picture during preproduction.
• Acted as attorney for major insurance carrier acting as sole insurer for California State Bar’s legal malpractice program. Provided counsel on legal malpractice coverage issues and as coordinator for all legal malpractice cases in California under these policies.

• Plaintiffs were supporters of a religious organization that owned a house, out of which religious activities were conducted. Plaintiffs made large donations to the church, and defendant church signed over a co-ownership interest in the house to them. Defendant subsequently requested that plaintiffs sign over their interest in the house back to the church but plaintiffs refused. Plaintiffs then sued for declaratory relief to confirm their ownership in the house and defendant counter-sued to collect on additional pledges.
• National church organization sued local affiliate of church for return of property national organization claimed belonged to it. Local affiliate claimed that the property belonged to it.
• Siblings sued other siblings over management of and distributions from family-owned real property. Counter-suit filed and issues of valuation, forced sale of shares in the business and damages were raised.
• Plaintiff was formerly the romantic partner of defendant and they were parents of grown children. Plaintiff was not a U.S. Citizen and defendant was, so their house was kept in his name, even though it was her income that paid for it. When defendant broke up with plaintiff, he demanded that she leave the house and she sued him for a declaration of ownership. He claimed that he was the only rightful owner of the property.
• Plaintiff leased real property from defendant for use as a dump site. Plaintiff sued defendant for indemnity against claims made against it arising from the presence of methane gas during plaintiff’s operation of the business. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and plaintiff and defendant were subsequently sued by numerous government agencies for the cost of clean-up of the site. Plaintiff sued defendant to enforce the settlement agreement and for a declaration that defendant was required to indemnify plaintiff for its losses.

• Plaintiff entered into transaction by which defendant signed over their home. Defendant claimed that they received no net funds for the transfer, but plaintiff sought quiet title in preemptive suit. Defendant cross-complained for return of title. Plaintiff had encumbered the house and claimed that all money had been spent. Settlement reached to quitclaim title to the house and for damages to be paid from sale of other real property owned by plaintiff.

view all