Comm. Thomas Rasch (Ret.)

• Plaintiff claimed that he was ousted from his ownership position by his fellow owners. Defendants claimed that he left voluntarily and opened his own cannabis venture. Formal agreements were poorly drafted and recordkeeping was very spotty. The inability to use traditional banking made valuation of the business very difficult. The parties reached an agreement to settle the case.
• A corporation secured a master lease on a warehouse and then sublet the spaces to several different growers. The subtenants experienced numerous problems including theft of product and utility interruptions. The master tenants absconded with the tenants’ deposits and other assets. The tenants brought a fraud action against the corporation and its individual owners based in part on alter ego theories. The corporation had no assets remaining. Several of the investors were served but others had disappeared. The tenants were able to recover some of their losses through a negotiated settlement with the individual investors.
• A city brought a collection action against a cannabis corporation for significant unpaid business taxes. They also sought payment from the sole shareholder under an alter ego theory. The business consisted of several separately created corporations. The city believed it could establish alter ego through the numerous transactions between the corporate entities. All of the entities had been created with the help of skillful legal assistance and corporate regularities had been observed. The corporate entity had ceased business and the sole shareholder was financially strapped. The city steeply discounted the taxes and the individual owner made a lump sum payment.

• Defendant had a contract to assemble and provide component parts to a manufacturer. The component parts required a specialized screw that was ordered from Plaintiff. While a screw would seem to be a fungible commodity, both sides agreed that this screw was unique and had no other use other than for the job contracted for. The two companies had worked together on many projects and both had numerous contracts with the manufacturer. After Plaintiff specially manufactured the screws, the underlying contract fell through, defendant cancelled the screw contract, and plaintiff was stuck with a huge inventory of screws that had no other market value. After a long mediation, the parties realized that proceeding with the litigation would entail bringing the manufacturer into the litigation and neither party wanted to jeopardize that relationship. Each side compromised and the matter resolved on terms that would allow both sides to work together in the future.
• Plaintiff was an aviation firm that provided private jet services. It sued a former employee who worked on commission claiming that he had breached his duties to the company, embezzled money through false invoices, and diverted business to a company he had set up. Plaintiff had retained forensic accountants that had been able to chase the complicated paper trail. Defendant countersued alleging he was a part owner and officer of plaintiff company. The litigation was very contentious. Defendant had gone through two sets of attorneys and was now self-represented. The trial court dismissed his counterclaims by way of summary judgment but he still tried to argue the merits of those claims at the settlement conference. Plaintiff had incurred huge attorney fees and knew that proceeding would be expensive and collection might be problematic. Plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a heavily discounted stipulated judgment wherein defendant agreed to pay significant dollars on a payment plan.
• Plaintiff was a commercial landlord leasing to defendant restaurant. Like many others, defendant was financially crushed by the COVID shutdown and could not survive. The defendant defaulted on the lease with several years left on the lease. Defendant claimed the crisis rendered performance impossible. Because of the crisis, plaintiff’s ability to relet the premises and mitigate damages was equally hampered. The parties reached a compromise which was incorporated into a stipulated judgment with payments.

• Plaintiff hired a contractor to expand a residential building. The project involved a partial demolition and then a rebuild adding a second story. Because only a small percentage of the building was being demolished, the permitting process was relatively straightforward and economic. Defendant contractor negligently demolished a far greater portion of the building than was authorized by the building permit. The city red tagged the project and the plaintiff was forced to go through a lengthy and expensive permitting process due to the new scope of the project. While the permitting process slowly progressed, contractor left building materials sitting on the property unprotected and exposed to the weather. Much of that material was rendered unusable. Plaintiff sued both the contractor and the architect. The case settled for a high figure with the contractor paying for the bulk of the settlement and the architect contributing a small amount based upon costs of defense.
• Contractor sued a homeowner for breach of contract on a residential remodel project of a high value home. Homeowner countersued claiming defective workmanship and demanding large damages paid to another contractor for repair and also for associated damages for delay, relocation, and inconvenience. The contractor argued that many of the “repair” damages were actually upgrades from the scope of the project. The parties ultimately reached agreement based upon a mediator’s proposal.

• At a time when the law was unsettled and there was no case on point, plaintiff employee sued her governmental employer for wrongful termination and religious discrimination for terminating her for refusal to get a COVID vaccination. Employer was adamant that any adverse verdict would be appealed. As our settlement conference was underway, a trial involving the same employer and issues and multiple plaintiffs was being held in federal court. The parties got closer but they were still significantly apart. A mediator’s proposal was prepared. Both parties accepted and as the agreement was being written, the jurors returned a verdict in the federal case in favor of plaintiffs. That verdict was ultimately overturned.
• Plaintiff contended that he was being harassed by coworkers and managers and that the employer failed to properly investigate the allegations and take corrective action. Plaintiff was terminated and he claimed it was retaliatory. Defendant contended the termination was for legitimate business reasons. The parties reached a compromise.
• Plaintiff sued employer for wrongful termination. Within two weeks, plaintiff had procured new employment at a higher salary and with better benefits. Regardless of liability, plaintiff had only nominal damages at best. The case settled for nuisance value which employer paid.

• Tenant brought an action based upon habitability. This was her second habitability claim against the landlord. In a separate action, landlord was attempting to evict tenant. By the time the case came to the settlement conference, the relationship between the tenant and her own attorney had completely broken down and they could no longer even talk to each other. A fairly substantial settlement offer had been on the table for a couple of months but there was no trust between attorney and client. Plaintiff would agree and then demand changes. With counsel’s permission, the client met directly with Comm. Rasch without counsel from the room. After two long sessions, both the habitability claim and the eviction were resolved. Despite coverage problems, the carrier put up money and landlord waived unpaid rent. Landlord paid additional money to get the tenant to move. Time was given to move and a structure was set up to incentivize an earlier vacating.
• A large group of tenants sued their landlord for habitability issues. Five separate units were involved. There were some problems common to all units and others were unique to individual units. Most of the tenants had vacated but one of the units was still occupied. None of the tenants spoke English. Prior to the settlement conference, landlord had sold the building to a new owner who was addressing issues raised by the lawsuit. Although there were some heated disputes over language in the settlement agreement, the matter ultimately resolved in full after two sessions. Some of the settlements were subject to a Minor compromise.
• Plaintiff’s apartment suffered major water damage forcing her to vacate the premises. Defendant landlord acted quickly to arrange for a hotel stay and give her meal allowances. Unfortunately, he dragged his feet on some of the repairs after plaintiff was able to reoccupy the premises. The parties were ultimately able to agree on compensation and the tenancy continued on.
• Plaintiff was one of many plaintiffs suing her landlord for his handling of security deposits. He was a major landlord who would not return deposits and then when sued in small claims by the tenant, he would file a cross-complaint elevating the case to Superior Court. On the eve of trial, plaintiff’s attorney was fatally injured in a motorcycle accident. Her case was severed from the other consolidated matters. Those cases went forward and the ultimate verdict included one million dollars in punitive damages. Plaintiff subsequently appeared with new counsel. Defendant appeared with trial counsel and his own personal counsel. The insurer also had coverage counsel present. The case finally resolved after multiple settlement sessions.

• Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. His damages exceeded the coverage of the primary policy and the excess carrier appeared with the top claims person who had flown in from out of state. To the frustration of the plaintiff and the excess carrier, the primary carrier refused to put up its policy and the process was at a standstill. The primary carrier was excluded from the discussion and the remaining parties proceeded to negotiate a settlement that was well in excess of the primary policy and was contingent upon the primary tendering its policy. Once there was a contingent agreement, the primary policy representatives were advised of the negotiations and informed that they would be receiving bad faith demands from both the plaintiff and the excess carrier if they did not tender the policy within 36 hours. The policy was tendered the next morning.
• Two policies covered a single accident. The primary policy was tendered and the secondary carrier put up some money but there was still a large gap. The secondary carrier advised that they had more authority but plaintiff would have to come below a certain number if he wanted to see what they had. After lengthy discussions with plaintiff, who was initially unwilling to make such a large move, he was willing to come down based on the premise that he would still have plenty of room to bargain to get to his desired number. When the new number was relayed, the adjuster stated she had no more authority despite the prior representations she had made. This led to a very frank and heated discussion. Negotiations were at an impasse, but the parties were left with a mediator’s proposal and the case settled the next day.
• Plaintiff was a commercial tenant in a professional building. Like many urban buildings, the surrounding neighborhood had deteriorated. At one point, the building had a call system where the doors were locked and the tenants would have to buzz their clients in but the owner and/or the property management company removed the system over the objection of the tenants. Plaintiff was assaulted in a hallway, dragged into a bathroom, and raped. Working with the parties, the case resolved for a significant amount.
• Plaintiff, an out of state musician, was performing with his band at a small club that featured alternative music. After the show, while he was packing up his equipment, plaintiff was attacked by several people in what was believed to be a targeted attack by a rival band. He suffered significant injuries and was hospitalized for over a week. He sued the club alleging that the security was inadequate and that a guard should have been posted at the side door leading to an alley. The case finally resolved after two settlement conferences.
• Plaintiff was injured when a trailer broke loose from the vehicle towing it and hit the plaintiff’s vehicle on the freeway. Plaintiff suffered a significant eye injury. The trailer belonged to a church and was being used by the pastor to move some of his own personal property to a vacation property. Plaintiff sued both the pastor and the church and defendants argued that the insurance policy did not cover the incident. A reading of the policy suggested otherwise. Once past that issue, the parties were able to resolve the matter.

• Plaintiff was a patron in a large store. While shopping, she was struck by a stocking cart being pushed by a store employee. She claimed life-changing injuries including cognitive injuries. Defendants contested not only the injuries but also the medical causation as plaintiff had pre-existing medical issues. The case had been heatedly contested with several discovery and sanctions motions and more motions pending. Expert depositions were just starting and over 10 experts had been designated. The parties managed to put aside their previously contentious relationship and resolve the matter.
• Plaintiff was patronizing an outdoor beer garden that allowed pets when she was bitten by defendant’s dog. Defendant contended the bite occurred when plaintiff attempted to pet his sleeping dog without permission from defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant and the beer garden. Both defended vigorously and the beer garden ultimately prevailed on a summary judgment motion just days before the settlement conference. Defendant had insurance but there was an exclusion for dogs as he failed to check the appropriate box when applying for insurance. He was entitled to a defense and that had been quite aggressive. The carrier refused to put up any money based upon cost of defense. A settlement was ultimately reached that took into account defendant’s lack of ability to pay. The settlement was to be paid in installments.

view all

• Plaintiff sued his uphill neighbor for water damage that he contended flowed onto his property due to improper drainage on defendant’s property. Defendant retained the services of one of the most respected hydrologists in the area. After extensive testing, the hydrologist concluded that the water actually came from an adjoining property that was not part of the lawsuit. Plaintiff had failed to retain a hydrologist who could rebut that testimony. That leverage enabled the matter to be settled for an amount well below the initial demand.
• Two brothers inherited property from their father. The property had been subdivided by the father into three properties. One had been previously sold off before the father’s death. The two remaining properties were back-to-back and the father had installed a swimming pool between them. Each brother inherited one property. The two brothers had a major falling out. It had always been assumed that the pool was on the property of one of the brothers. That brother sold the property to a third party. It was then discovered that the pool was partially on the other brother’s property as well. New purchaser ended up suing for damages or recission. All mechanisms of settlement were explored including easements and lot line adjustments which were not guaranteed to be approved by the city. The matter finally resolved with the selling brother paying the other brother for the value of the land encroached upon and a lot line adjustment. In the event the city would not approve a lot line adjustment, the contract between the selling brother and the purchaser would be rescinded. Buyer also received other compensation including attorney fees.
• Siblings inherited property as tenants in common. One brother was living in the property but was not maintaining the property and was not paying his share of the expenses. The property was badly in need of deferred maintenance and that could not be undertaken as long as the brother occupied it. The non-occupying siblings brought an action for partition. The occupying brother wanted to remain in the property but lacked the wherewithal to purchase his siblings’ interests. The siblings were afraid he would sabotage any sale as he had nowhere to go. After much negotiation, the parties agreed to sell the property and further agreed that the occupying brother would be given time to move and an advance on his equity in the property to enable him to find a new place to live so the property could be marketed.