Hon. Tony L. Richardson (Ret.)

• The shareholder derivative action involved an acquisition of a legal services company and alleged fraud regarding same. A parallel criminal investigation in federal court against the individual defendants raised complicated issues, including the impact of any convictions on the civil case, allegations of conflicts of interest involving plaintiff’s counsel, fraud claims involving defendant’s employees’ stock ownership plan, and insurance coverage.
• Plaintiff alleged an entertainment company hired her to serve as an executive producer on a spin-off television show based on a highly popular and successful movie franchise, and the company then reneged on the parties’ agreement.
• The case involved claims of elder abuse brought by daughter of deceased comic book creator who contends defendants took advantage of her father.
• Breach of contract claims were asserted by the parties concerning written and oral agreements relating to the sale of a rice cake business and associated joint arrangements regarding one party obtaining a visa. The case also involved allegations of Labor Code violations for which one party sought relief.
• Plaintiff filed the action for quantum meruit asserting she was not paid for the management tasks she performed for defendants and defendants breached the parties’ agreement plaintiff would become a partner in defendants’ business. Defendants filed a cross-complaint alleging intentional interference with prospective economic opportunities and violation of the Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act.

• Plaintiff filed the action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and equitable subrogation, seeking reimbursement for funds plaintiff paid to a senior lienholder to obtain clear title to real property plaintiff purchased at a foreclosure sale initiated by a junior lienholder.
• Plaintiff sued defendants, alleging they breached an agreement whereby plaintiff was to invest $200,000 in defendants’ marijuana production operations in exchange for 20% ownership of the business; defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations; and plaintiff was thereby entitled to quantum meruit damages.
• Breach of contract, conversion, common counts and liability on a personal guaranty were alleged in this action which was based on plaintiff’s contention defendants refused to pay off a balance defendants owed plaintiff on consignment for jewelry merchandise delivered to defendants.
• Plaintiff, a former stockbroker employed by defendants, sought relief for alleged fraud, an accounting, and common counts, claiming he provided financial, securities, and investment services and advice to clients. He further alleged Defendants failed to pay him commissions on certain stock trades to which he was entitled.
• Plaintiffs claim they entered into a purchase and sales agreement regarding the sale of two hotels for $20 million. However, defendants, a broker who facilitated the deal and buyers, breached fiduciary duties and the buyers defaulted on their payments and now owe plaintiffs more than $9 million plus interest on that amount.
• Plaintiff alleges defendants started a company, and plaintiff agreed to work for it in exchange for a five percent ownership interest, but defendants re-formed the company as a two-member limited liability company to exclude plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, conversion, and wrongful termination.
• Plaintiff filed a complaint against individual defendants and an entity defendant asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of a written guaranty, fraud, and indemnification. The claims arose out of a loan and security agreement plaintiff entered into with the entity defendant whereby plaintiff loaned it $2.5 million to finance the production of a theatrical motion picture. The individual defendants executed personal guarantees, through which they unconditionally guaranteed the full, complete, and timely performance by the entity defendant of all obligations under the original agreement. Plaintiff brought the instant action when defendants failed to fulfill such obligations.
• Plaintiff, a cannabis cultivator fully licensed in the business, brought an action against several individual and entity defendants alleging defendants were responsible for plaintiff losing its license and millions in profits and incurring millions in tax liabilities and business debts. It brought claims for breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duties, intentional and negligent misrepresentations, negligence, conversion, restitution, and unfair business practices.
• Plaintiff, a medical supply distributor, entered into contractual relations with defendants, medical distribution companies and affiliated manufacturers, during the initial stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, to ensure personal protective equipment was to be promptly delivered to essential services at affordable prices. When plaintiff determined gloves for which it had paid in advance were not made of the high-quality materials as represented by defendants, it brought the action against defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, intentional and negligent interference with contractual relations and with prospective economic advantage, false advertising, and unfair competition.
• Plaintiffs/insureds brought an action claiming they were induced by individual broker defendants to surrender and flip their then existing unleveraged life insurance policies into high dollar/high commission life insurance policies with defendant insurance companies. Plaintiffs brought an action against all defendants for breach of contract, fraud, professional negligence, unfair business practices, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Plaintiff and defendant, two business entities, arbitrated a dispute concerning plaintiff’s failed transaction to purchase defendant’s business. The arbitrator found for plaintiff, and an order confirming the arbitration award was entered in plaintiff’s favor. The primary remaining issue was how the millions of dollars plaintiff had paid defendant for an uncompleted transaction was to be handled because defendant not only kept what plaintiff had paid, but it also retained ownership and control of the business. Plaintiff then filed the instant complaint seeking a return of all monies it alleges defendant wrongfully retained.
• Plaintiff, a construction company, and defendant, a local school district, entered into a written, designbuild construction contract. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant for breach of contract and breach of warranty of correctness of plans and specifications. Plaintiff alleges, during the performance of the contract, defendant requested and required plaintiff and its subcontractors to perform significant extra work, which resulted in significantly increased costs and required time to perform. Despite being statutorily obligated to do so, defendant failed to issue change orders, to increase the compensation amount due to plaintiff, and to issue time extensions to plaintiff.

view all

• Plaintiff alleged Unruh Civil Rights Act violations and claims for breach of contract, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress against a college he attended. He asserted he was discriminated against based on his ethnicity and disability and retaliated against for asserting his civil rights by filing an internal grievance against the college.
• Plaintiff, a journalist, was shot twice with rubber bullets by Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department deputies while he was reporting on a protest. Plaintiff filed claims alleging violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act and the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, assault, battery, and negligence.
• Plaintiff, a police sergeant with the Los Angeles Sherrif’s Department, contends defendant retaliated against her for reporting deputy gang activity, timecard fraud, fraud in the lieutenant’s exam process, and discriminatory hiring practices. Extensive discovery necessitated conducting hearings on Pitchess motions and determinations of whether particularly sensitive law enforcement documents, which purportedly had not ever been produced, were discoverable and producible.
• Plaintiff brought the action under FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming unlawful housing discrimination based on her Section 8 status.
• Plaintiff alleges she was a patron of defendant’s store; defendant’s employee falsely told her a spider was on her back; and he used that as an excuse to slap plaintiff’s buttocks. Plaintiff further alleges this employee did so based on plaintiff’s age, race, national origin, immigration status, or sex.

• Plaintiff asserted a sole cause of action under the California Invasion of Privacy Act against Defendant, a company which sells electrical supplies and accessories and owns, operates, and controls a website, which Plaintiff assessed. Plaintiff claims defendant secretly allows a third-party spyware company to eavesdrop on the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature on its website, and the spyware company then exploits and monetizes that data.

view all

• Plaintiff and a subcontractor entered into a Short Form Subcontract Agreement under which the subcontractor agreed to perform and furnish the labor, services, materials, and equipment necessary to complete the below-grade waterproofing of the basement at plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges he discovered four leaks in the basement at the theatre room, powder room, and guest bathroom and immediately notified the subcontractor, which thereafter returned to the property and performed injections to the inside of the basement walls in an attempt to stop the leaks. The injections did not remedy the situation. In the following month, additional water leaks occurred. But the subcontractor’s eventual response was the leaks were coming from a plumbing line, not from the failure of the below-grade waterproofing it had installed. Plaintiff then hired a leak detection company, which tested for leaks in the domestic and irrigation system throughout the property, water piping systems, and incoming and outgoing waste lines at the basement sump pit. No leaks were detected. The leak detection company concluded the infiltration of water into the basement was not from a plumbing system, but rather from groundwater. Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of contract and negligence.
• Plaintiff undertook a design and renovation job concerning defendant’s condominium unit subject to a design and construction contract, which plaintiff alleged defendant breached. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for fraud, defamation, and conversion as well. Defendant cross-complained against plaintiff and others, asserting claims for disgorgement, breach of contract, negligence, and fraud while alleging plaintiff lacked a contractor’s license and mismanaged the renovation and reconstruction of the unit.
• This multi-party, construction defect action arose out of a residential construction and renovation project performed at real property owned by plaintiffs who allege they entered into a design build arrangement with defendant, who undertook responsibility for the design, coordination, and construction of the project. Defendant retained numerous subcontractors and tradesmen to perform discrete scopes of work, including but not limited to plastering, flooring, plumbing, electrical, painting, roofing, drywall, and finish work. Plaintiffs further allege the project was not timely completed and various aspects of the work were defective, non compliant with applicable standards, and improperly designed or constructed, resulting in property damage, economic loss, loss of use, and the need for investigation, repair, and remediation. Plaintiffs also allege defendant was not properly licensed during a portion of the project and some of the subcontractors were also not properly licensed. Defendants denied all allegations, asserted affirmative defenses, and some filed cross-complaints against the involved subcontractors.
• This construction defect action arose from two separate construction projects occurring in 2009 and in 2015 at a high-end single-family residence. Beginning in 2009, two defendants constructed and performed other improvements at the subject property, which included construction of a second story addition and remodel of the existing first level. In 2015, the home was purchased by a real estate investor, who then hired two other defendants to convert an exterior deck into a walk-in closet for the master bedroom. Others were hired to do roofing work and lath and plaster work for the closet project, both of which were former parties in this case. Between 2016 and 2020, plaintiff rented the subject property and discovered water intrusion in and around the area of the closet project. After discovering water intrusion in more areas than just the area of the closet project, plaintiff contracted with various parties to repair the conditions. But the water intrusion was not remedied.
• HOA entered into contract with defendant, a roofing company, to improve the property by performing roofing, decking, waterproofing, and related services. Plaintiff alleges the work was defective and, instead of addressing the defects, defendant abandoned the project.

• A well-known composer asserted libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims based on a film defendant produced, which plaintiff claims portrays him as a mobster, among other things.
• Plaintiff alleged defamation pe se, false light, negligence, civil harassment, and declaratory and injunctive relief against defendant who allegedly entrapped plaintiff by mildly suggesting he were a minor on an online dating website, which were reflected in the parties’ internet chat. Defendant then showed up on plaintiff’s property loudly announcing plaintiff was a pedophile while videotaping his confrontation with plaintiff and later posting the video and plaintiff’s personal information for public consumption.
• Plaintiff alleges he worked for defendant who placed him on administrative leave without cause and then terminated his employment. Plaintiff also alleges defendant’s chief executive officer and director of security falsely accused him of embezzling funds from defendant.
• Plaintiff formed a partnership with two other individuals and invested in a start-up drilling business. When one of the partners resigned as president of the business and from its board of directors, a dispute arose between plaintiff and that partner regarding the proper valuation of plaintiff’s shares. Plaintiff brought the instant action for defamation, alleging the departing partner defamed and disparaged him and tried to harm him by interfering with plaintiff’s relationship with the business and the third partner.
• Plaintiff, a highly accomplished composer and producer and an entrepreneurial business executive in the music industry, filed a defamation claim against defendant, a producer of a motion picture which purportedly intentionally presents false narratives and defamatory fiction as truth, Plaintiff alleges, in so doing, defendant had advanced a fraudulent and made-up story line in which plaintiff is wrongfully and dishonestly portrayed as a thug and a mobster.

• Employment discrimination case brought by a Los Angeles County firefighter.
• Employment discrimination case concerning a television broadcasting company’s termination of two employees who refused to get vaccinated for Covid-19.
• College coach alleged being wrongfully terminated by the athletic director at a local university.
• Several former employees sued the Regents of the University of California for alleged racial and disability discrimination and harassment.
• Employees filed a PAGA action against defendant, a real estate listing company, alleging extensive FEHA claims and wage and hour violations. Defendant moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in parties’ employment agreement.

• Plaintiff was a civil engineer for a municipality. He filed a complaint against the city for violations of Labor Code provisions, racial harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. During his employment, third-party contractors were responsible for managing plaintiff’s work on two projects. Plaintiff reported to defendant the third-party contractors had engaged in unlawful conduct, including fraudulent billing practices and OSHA and EPA violations, and they had subjected him to discrimination and harassment based on his race, color, and/or national origin. Defendant gave plaintiff a negative performance review and subsequently terminated him.
• Plaintiff, a pastor, was fired by his employer, a well-known church in the southern California and filed a complaint for employment discrimination.
• Defendant is a powerhouse leader in the digital sports platform. Plaintiff was an executive of defendant who accepted an offer of employment from an entity which was primed to be defendant’s major rival in the sports betting arena. Defendant, therefore, sought to prevent plaintiff from working for the rival based on an employment agreement which contained, among other things, a 12-month noncompete and non-solicitation provision. Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and violations of Business and Professions codes 16600 and 17200. Plaintiff claimed defendant sought to invoke the terms of the employment agreement in violation of California law and public policy. Defendant had obtained a ruling in an out of state federal court declaring the validity of the noncompete provision.

view all

• Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their civil rights, alleging defendant, a major television broadcasting company, terminated them for refusing to get vaccinated for Covid-19.
• Plaintiff alleged an entertainment company hired her to serve as an executive producer on a spin-off television show based on a highly popular and successful movie franchise, and the company then reneged on the parties’ agreement.
• Plaintiff, a film production company, entered into a written contract with defendants which called for plaintiff to provide substantial financial contributions to fund the development, production, and post-production aspects of a television series in exchange for the rights to profits and involvement in the production process. Plaintiff filed an action alleging defendants failed to fulfill their contractual obligations and brought claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conversion of film materials.

• State Department of Toxic Substances Control brought an action against a corporation which owns and operates a facility where it generates, handles, treats, and stores hazardous waste. The agency alleges defendant violated the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief against Defendant.

• Plaintiffs brought an action sounding in fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of corporate securities law against multiple defendants. They allege having been defrauded by defendants into investing more than $60 million into business concerns which existed solely to funnel compensation to a third party through purported sham endorsement deals.
• Insurance company plaintiff filed a fraud and unlawful business practices case arising from defendants’ years long scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiff and its members by submitting fraudulent claims for out-of-network healthcare services which were misrepresented, inflated, or never provided at all.
• Business entity/judgment creditor brought action against several individuals and business entities alleging defendants fraudulently received and/or transferred plaintiff’s assets in excess of two million dollars, exclusive of post-judgment interest, attorney fees, and costs.
• Self-represented litigant brought an action against several governmental entities responsible for overseeing healthcare facilities and a senior care facility claiming defendants committed fraud, dependent adult abuse, and neglect, and Unruh Act and RICO violations. Plaintiff alleges the healthcare facility provided inadequate care to his father, who died as a result of abuses he experienced at the facility.
• Plaintiff/judgment creditor brought an action against individual defendants/judgment creditors for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the California Uniform Voidable Transaction Act. Plaintiff asserts he prevailed in actions he brought against defendants relating to defendants having deprived him of his equity stake in a multi-media company, and defendants thereafter fraudulently transferred assets to avoid satisfying the judgment. Such recent transfers included ownership of real property in Malibu which was destroyed in January 2025 by the Pacific Palisades wildfire. This, in turn, implicates the parties’ entitlement to insurance proceeds under an insurance policy covering the property.

• Plaintiffs sued defendant law firms and insurance companies in connection with an underlying lawsuit against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege one of the insurers insured plaintiffs in connection with a motor vehicle collision, which led to the underlying lawsuit, and appointed a law firm to represent plaintiffs in that action. The claimant in the underlying lawsuit made a policy limits demand against plaintiffs, which plaintiffs allege the law firm and insurer improperly rejected. Plaintiffs eventually hired their own counsel, and the insurer subsequently settled the underlying claim for three times more than the policy limits. Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant action asserting causes of action for fraud, breaches of fiduciary and good faith and fair dealing duties, and legal malpractice.

view all

• Plaintiffs, parents and their two young children, filed this action claiming they were seriously harmed by mold infestation at the home they rented from defendants. Case involved extensive expert reports and testimony.
• Several families brought an action against landlord and associated entities alleging, in the subject property, they were exposed to deteriorated flooring, walls, ceilings and cabinets, inadequate fire protection, faulty electrical wires and outlets, inadequate heating and ventilation, improper sewage disposal, deteriorated walls and ceilings, inoperable doors and windows, excessive odors, dysfunctional plumbing systems, dampness, and infestations of cockroaches, bedbugs, and other vermin.
• The action arose out of personal injury and monetary damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of various unhabitable, unhealthy, and unsanitary conditions, including infestation of mold during plaintiffs’ tenancy at an apartment owned and operated by defendants, owners of large apartment and condominium complexes throughout Los Angeles.
• In a 19-count complaint, plaintiffs alleged the property they rented from defendants was rendered uninhabitable because it was in a constant state of disrepair in that they faced a litany of issues, including but not limited to, severe plumbing problems, gas leaks, indoor water pollution, insect infestation, severe tenant harassment, general dilapidation of the property, burglary incidents leading to safety concerns, defective heating and air conditioning appliances, multiple electrical issues, and fire hazards.
• Plaintiff alleged municipal code violations and claims for habitability, private nuisance, trespass and unfair business practices which resulted from defendants’ mismanagement of an Airbnb rental.

• Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging tortious breach of an insurance contract and bad faith for defendant’s failure to pay the policy limits after a mediator had awarded plaintiff the full policy limits. Plaintiff claimed to have suffered damages resulting from a lost opportunity to use the funds to invest in a business.
• Plaintiff/insurer provided defendant with a workers compensation insurance policy, which plaintiff alleges defendant breached by failing to pay premiums required under the policy.
• Plaintiff/insured secured a homeowner’s insurance policy with defendant. When plaintiff discovered extensive water damage which caused the home to be uninhabitable because of foundation movement and defendant did not thoroughly investigate the matter nor adequately reimburse her for her losses, plaintiff brought the instant action for breach of contract and bad faith handling of her claim.

• Plaintiff alleges defendant breached the commercial lease agreement entered into by the parties by engaging in harassing and violative conduct designed to oust plaintiff from the property so that defendant could sell it at a high price to a proposed development plan. Defendant cross-complained, asserting claims for breach of lease and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

• Decedent’s successors brought a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against a hospital and several physicians, alleging negligence and mismanagement concerning decedent’s care and treatment which ultimately led to her death after a medical procedure was undertaken.
• Plaintiff sued his doctors and the medical facility where they worked for medical malpractice, fraud, retaliation, and battery. Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to order, authorize, and coordinate medically necessary post-transplant surveillance labs despite reported symptoms; made direct misrepresentations and omissions to him that laboratory testing lacked authorization or insurance approval when they had not submitted complete provider authorization requests for the requested oncology labs; performed an unauthorized peripheral venipuncture exceeding his express limitation of consent to implanted-port access only; and, in retaliation for him complaining and submitting a written grievance, retaliated against him by terminating his oncology care.
• In his complaint, plaintiff states he is a 57-year-old dependent adult with autism and is developmentally disabled. He avers an individual who claims to be trustee of a trust which ostensibly holds title to the home in which he had lived and for which he had paid the mortgage and associated expenses for more than 30 years, hired an attorney who facilitated plaintiff’s eviction by obtaining a default judgment through an unlawful detainer action. In a separate proceeding, the trustee sought to be plaintiff’s conservator. In that matter, the court appointed defendant to represent plaintiff. However, defendant abdicated his duties when plaintiff’s attorney in the instant matter sought to have defendant seek a stay of execution of the default judgment to prevent plaintiff from being ousted from his home. Accordingly, plaintiff brought the instant action against defendant for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice.
• Plaintiffs filed a claim for professional negligence and breach of contract stemming from defendant representing plaintiffs in a federal court action. Plaintiffs claim because of defendant’s negligence and failure to meet the standard of care, plaintiffs’ ability to defend themselves was severely undermined and plaintiffs likely would have won the case or would have been able to settle it on more favorable terms. In the instant action, after negotiations between counsel, plaintiff asserts the matter was settled for a sum certain. However, defendant then reneged on the agreement and refused to abide by the terms of the settlement.

• Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, a claim under Cal. Corp. Code §15910.01, breach of partnership agreement, for an accounting, reformation, and judicial dissolution, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff claims she first invested in the partnership with defendant more than 50 years ago. Under the agreement, she was entitled to receive distributions in proportion to her investment since the partnership is a for-profit real estate business which should provide profit distributions, but her requests to receive the distributions to which she is entitled have been rejected.

• Plaintiff brought a product liability case involving electric bikes, usage of which caused Plaintiff to be injured. There are a multitude of issues involving spoilation of evidence, international defendants not engaging in the case, and the eventual intervention of third-party insurance company.
• The action concerned a labeling company’s mistakes on prescription labels for a pharmaceutical company’s drug.

• Plaintiff filed the action for quantum meruit asserting she was not paid for the management tasks she performed for defendants and defendants breached the parties’ agreement plaintiff would become a partner in defendants’ business. Defendants filed a cross-complaint alleging intentional interference with prospective economic opportunities and violation of the Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act.

• Some time after a husband and wife had obtained a judgment of legal separation in family law court, plaintiff/wife and defendant/husband acquired title to real property. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged, as part of their negotiations for an increase in the amount of child support defendant was to pay, and in exchange for plaintiff forgoing seeking any further relief in family court for an increase in child support, defendant agreed to transfer to plaintiff 43% of an undivided interest in the real property and an additional 7% annually until plaintiff attained 100% interest in the subject property. Plaintiff, therefore, sought to quiet title and a declaration defendant no longer had any interest in the real property adverse to her.

• Plaintiff, an HOA, and defendant entered into a written contract whereby defendant agreed to provide labor, materials, and equipment necessary to complete a work of improvement, which consisted of roofing, decking, waterproofing and related services. Plaintiff alleges the work was defective on a large scale; it brought the conditions to defendant’s attention; defendant refused to remedy them; and defendant instead abandoned the project.
• Plaintiff owns a condominium and filed a complaint against a HOA which refused to repair the roof.
• Plaintiffs alleged their former attorney breached his fiduciary duties, misappropriated trade secrets, committed unfair competition, and interfered with their prospective economic advantage, based on the attorney later representing a third party in a real property transaction plaintiff engaged in with that third party. Plaintiff also sued the third party for unfair competition, and the third-party cross-complained, claiming trespass and forgery.
• A municipality brought an action against homeowners for failure to comply with municipality’s requirements regarding maintenance of property. The property was placed under the control of receiver. But the homeowners’ noncompliance continued to the point of the property being placed on the market for sale. After mandatory settlement conferences were held, an agreement was reached whereby no sale was necessary contingent on the homeowners satisfying specified conditions, and the receiver was relieved of her duties.

• Plaintiffs, now adults, allege they were molested while in high school by their volunteer teacher.
• Plaintiff brought the action against defendant, a church institution, and others alleging childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiff contends two perpetrators, who were adult leaders and/or volunteers assigned by defendants to supervise, mentor, and instruct plaintiff, sexually abused plaintiff while plaintiff participated as a minor in a church program defendants operated.
• Plaintiff brought a complaint for damages alleging defendant, a real estate broker who focused on the ultra-luxury market, sexually battered and assaulted her, while using his wealth, power, and social influence to commit and conceal his violent crime against her.