Hon. Gerald Rosenberg (Ret.)


Hon. Gerald Rosenberg (Ret.) joined ADR Services, Inc. in 2019 after an impressive 44-year career as a civil litigator, Court Commissioner, and Judge of the Superior Court. He is available for mediations, arbitrations, reference assignments, mock trials, and private trials.

After graduating from Southwestern Law School, Judge Rosenberg established a successful civil litigation practice in Sherman Oaks, specializing in real estate, business, family law, personal injury, and construction cases. He maintained his litigation practice until he was appointed by the judges as a Court Commissioner in 1995. He served in this role for both the Beverly Hills and Santa Monica Courthouses until he was elevated to a judgeship in 2000.

Judge Rosenberg is well regarded as a learned and considerate jurist with an impeccable judicial temperament and a thorough knowledge and application of the law. After initial assignments in Criminal Preliminary Hearings and Trials, Civil Trials, Family Law, and Probate, Judge Rosenberg spent the majority of his career presiding over Unlimited Jurisdiction Civil Cases in the Santa Monica courthouse, earning a reputation for his patience, extensive preparation, and evenhanded rulings. In addition, he served as Assistant Supervising Judge and later Supervising Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court West District.

In recognition of his judicial achievements, Judge Rosenberg was named the 2017 Trial Judge of the Year by the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and the 2011 Outstanding Judicial Officer by Southwestern Law School.


  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Contract/General Business
  • Discovery Reference
  • Entertainment
  • Fee Disputes
  • Landlord/Tenant
  • Legal Malpractice
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mock Trial
  • Partnership Dissolution
  • Personal Injury
  • Products Liability
  • Real Estate



  • Independently Calendared Civil Cases (2010-2019)
  • Supervising Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court West District (2007-2010)
  • Assistant Supervising Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court West District (2004-2006)
  • Assignments: Criminal Preliminary Hearings and Trials, Civil Trials, Family Law, and Probate (2000-2009)


  • Assignments: Criminal Preliminary Hearings and Trials, and Civil Trials


  • Assignments: Civil Motions, Civil Trials, Criminal Trials, Criminal Arraignments, Preliminary Hearings, Traffic Arraignments, Traffic Trials, and Small Claims


2017    TRIAL JUDGE OF THE YEAR, American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA)

2011    OUTSTANDING JUDICIAL OFFICER, Southwestern Law School



  • Specialization: Civil Litigation


  • Served as Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and Glendale Judicial Districts
  • Certificates of Achievement from the Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District (1992-1994)


  • Specialization: Civil Litigation



  • Responsible for preparing all game day statistics for distribution to the NFL, the Raiders, the visiting team, and the media. Served as the Official Scorer of the 1987 and 1993 Super Bowls. In 1994, served as Official Scorer of the American Bowl in Barcelona, Spain.


  • Management of after-school and summer elementary school playground programs. Staff position coordinating and supervising summer field trips for elementary school children.


1975    SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL, J.D., Dean’s List



2019    “MEDIATING THE LITIGATED CASE”, Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution (6-day training)


  • Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers (2010-2012)
  • Alumni Board, Southwestern Law School (2007-2019)
  • California Judges Association (1995-Present)
  • Trustee of the Board of Governors, Santa Monica Bar Association (2002-2003)
  • Chairman, Judge Pro Tem Program for the San Fernando Valley Bar Association (1985)
  • Past Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Santa Monica Bar Association, and San Fernando Valley Bar Association

Representative Cases


  • Petitioner entered into a contract with Respondent to manufacture and install custom drawers and cabinets. A dispute arose between the parties and the matter was arbitrated as required under the contract. The arbitration award required Petitioner to deliver the drawers and cabinets to Respondent and Respondent to pay Petitioner for the products.
  • Plaintiff entered into a contract for severe alcohol abuse rehabilitation services with Defendant located in the City of Malibu. Plaintiff resided in Chicago and flew to Los Angeles. When Plaintiff arrived at LAX she was intoxicated, having consumed alcohol on the flight. She was picked up at the airport by a limousine and she instructed the driver sent by Defendant to stop at a liquor store, where she purchased a bottle of wine, half of which she consumed on the way to the rehab center. Upon presentation to Defendant’s facility for treatment, Defendant refused to admit her because sobriety was a condition of admission. As a result, Defendant’s employee was instructed to drive Plaintiff to Agoura Hills and help her with checking into a hotel. Plaintiff alleges that after the employee assisted her into her room, he raped her. The same day, Defendant’s admissions counselor picked Plaintiff up at the hotel, transported her to Defendant’s facility and admitted her. The admission agreement has an arbitration clause. Plaintiff reported the rape to her counselors and filed a police report three days later. Two days before completing her 30-day program, Defendant expelled Plaintiff from the program, claiming she violated facility rules. Plaintiff claims the expulsion was wrongful and that she was entitled to a refund of her remaining fees. Defendant refused to refund the fees on grounds that the expulsion was a valid response to Plaintiff’s non-compliance. Plaintiff sued, and Defendant moved to Compel Arbitration.
  • Petitioner represented Respondent in a marital dissolution proceeding. Respondent failed to pay for services rendered. Petitioner now moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the retainer agreement.
  • Petitioners have an auto insurance policy with Respondent. Petitioners claim benefits under the uninsured motorist coverage of their policy. Respondent refuses to provide these benefits. Petitioners petition to compel arbitration of the dispute.
  • Petitioner hired Respondent as legal counsel on a real estate deal. As counsel, Respondent was to prepare loan documents memorializing a loan from Petitioner to non-parties. Petitioner alleges that Respondent negligently prepared these documents when he failed to include language protecting Petitioner from Respondent’s diversion of the loan funds from their intended purpose. Petitioner seeks to compel arbitration of the controversy.
  • Petitioner entered into a contract with Respondent for construction of a new Child Development Center at Petitioner’s Trade Tech campus. A dispute arose between the parties regarding Respondent’s claims for additional compensation and payment under the contract. The parties participated in binding arbitration. After 9 months of hearings, the Final Award was made. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an action to challenge the award of prejudgment interest, the denial of Petitioner’s request for delay damages, and the award of costs incurred for re-drawing shop drawings and refabricating steel columns. Respondent filed a counter petition to confirm the award in full.
  • Petitioner obtained an arbitration award in its favor on Respondent’s legal malpractice claim. A final arbitration award was issued which denied Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees. Thereafter, a revised final arbitration award was issued which included an award of attorney’s fees. Petitioner filed an action to confirm the arbitration award and Respondent filed a separate petition seeking to vacate the award on grounds that the revised final arbitration award was invalid because it exceeded the powers of the arbitrator.
  • Petitioners and Respondents entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, and Escrow Instructions. Petitioners were to sell certain real property to Respondents pursuant to the Agreement. A controversy arose between the parties and the Petitioners requested that the court compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the Agreement.
  • Petitioner is Respondent's landlord. Respondent defaulted on rent due and the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein Respondent acknowledged the amount due and agreed to arbitration in the event of a dispute. Respondent defaulted on the settlement payments and Petitioner submitted the breach of the settlement agreement to arbitration.
  • Petitioner provided accounting services to Respondent's marital dissolution proceeding. Respondent failed to pay for those services. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause. Petitioner submitted the claim to arbitration and the arbitrator issued an award in Petitioner's favor. Petitioner sought an order from the court to confirm the arbitration award.
  • Petitioner loaned money to a company pursuant to a loan agreement and a promissory note; Respondent guaranteed the repayment of the loan. Petitioner moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a separate arbitration agreement between the parties that governed the note, loan agreement and personal guaranty.
  • Petitioners were general contractors on the construction of an apartment complex owned by Respondent. Petitioners allege that the construction was completed, and Respondent failed to timely pay all amounts due Petitioners. The parties engaged in arbitration pursuant to the general contract’s arbitration provision. The arbitration proceeded over 21 months. Thereafter, the arbitrator issued his final award and found that Respondent owed Petitioners $24 million. Petitioners filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award. Respondents filed a motion to set aside the award.
  • Petitioner leases commercial property from Respondent. The parties’ lease agreement provides that the annual rent for the property will be 6% of the appraised value of the bare land. The lease further provides that the rent is to be reappraised every five years. The process by which the appraisal is to be conducted is set forth in the Lease Agreement. Petitioner and Respondent were required to each select a neutral appraiser in accordance with certain professional requirements. If the two neutral appraisers could not agree on an appraisal of the value of the land, they were to jointly select a third neutral appraiser. If they could not jointly agree on a third neutral appraiser, the parties were to petition the court to appoint a third neutral appraiser in accordance with the Lease Agreement. The appraisers did not agree on the appraisal nor could they agree on the selection of a third appraiser. A motion was filed with the court.
  • Petitioners’ home suffered significant fire and smoke damage. Respondent provided the homeowner’s insurance policy on the property. Petitioners submitted a claim for the property damage. The parties could not agree on the appraisal value of the damage. The parties thereafter submitted the appraisal for determination pursuant to procedures set forth under California Insurance Code §2071 and the subject policy. In conformity with the procedure, Petitioners appointed an appraiser and Respondent appointed an appraiser. The appraisers appointed an umpire. The parties challenged the appraisals and both sides submitted the matter for determination by the court.
  • Petitioner obtained an arbitration award against Respondents for breach of an agreement whereby Petitioner placed its jet with Respondents for a joint venture charter service. Petitioner alleged that Respondents breached the charter agreement by retaining all funds earned from twelve flights subject to the Charter Agreement. Respondent was a suspended corporation at the time of the arbitration and default judgment was entered against it. The arbitrator found in favor of Petitioner. The court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment.
  • Petitioner obtained an arbitration award against Respondent in connection with a contract dispute. Petitioner and Respondent entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement whereby Respondent was obligated to sell all of its assets, including customer information, to Petitioner. The agreement provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute. Petitioner maintained that the Respondent failed to transfer all assets under the Asset Purchase Agreement. Petitioner prevailed in arbitration.
  • Petitioner provided investment funds to Respondents pursuant to a promissory note. A dispute arose between the parties regarding Petitioner’s claim that Respondents defrauded him. The matter was arbitrated in accordance with the parties' agreements. The arbitrator issued an award in Petitioner's favor. Respondents participated in the arbitration hearing and filed a counter-claim which the arbitrator dismissed with prejudice. The court granted a Motion to Confirm the Award.

view all


  • Competing claims of specific performance and breach of contract regarding the cultivation and distribution of cannabis.
  • Dispute over the ownership of a Marijuana Dispensary.
  • Objections filed to the final report of a receiver involving the winding up of the affairs of a marijuana dispensary.
  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants published an online article reporting that she was “operating an allegedly illegal marijuana-growing operation in San Bernardino,” that she was a “drug lord” and making “millions of dollars per month running the operation,” and that she “paid cash for two warehouse and a home from the operation.” Plaintiff contends these statements were defamatory, because she does not operate a marijuana business and is not involved in a marijuana operation. Plaintiff admits that she leases space to commercial cannabis operators, but she has never been a marijuana operator and has no interest in any marijuana operations. Plaintiff has no profit sharing arrangement with her commercial cannabis tenants. Plaintiff alleges she has suffered damages because of Defendant’s false reporting that she is a marijuana operator.
  • Plaintiffs are the owners of a marijuana dispensary. They executed an initial partnership agreement and operated a marijuana dispensary at the premises leased from Defendants. Thereafter, the City of Los Angeles passed Proposition D (“ICO”), which imposed zoning restrictions on marijuana dispensaries. Plaintiffs did not possess a “Pre-ICO” license, which provided recipients with “limited immunity” to operate within the city of Los Angeles despite Proposition D. To cure the lack of a Pre-ICO license, Plaintiffs partnered with Defendant which operated a marijuana dispensary near Plaintiff’s dispensary pursuant to a Pre-ICO license. Plaintiffs and Defendant executed a joint venture operating agreement. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant conspired with others to force Plaintiffs from operating or participating in the joint venture.


    • Breach of Contract claim regarding a buy-out provision.
    • Failure to disclose the City's intent to perform extensive work on the street and sidewalks at the time of the signing of the lease.
    • Defendants acquired the Plaintiff's home as part of a home improvement contract.
    • Tenant claims damage as a result of a breach of the lease, which provides for the construction of an 8-foot-high perimeter fence when the landlord constructs a 6-foot-high fence in conformity with the city's ordinance.
    • Claim by fine art store for unpaid merchandise.
    • Claim for commission regarding the procurement of a loan.
    • Claim for return of security deposit for a joint venture that did not go forward.
    • Claim of misappropriation of trade secrets resulting from the loss of business for an insurance broker when one of its employees left and took clients.
    • After dissolving their personal relationship, a couple was left with dividing their interest in a business, real property, and personal property.
    • Homeowner claimed that he was overcharged by his general contractors for interior and landscaping work.
    • Plaintiff contended that a loan application was submitted on her behalf by her assistant. Further, she contended that there were sufficient red flags on the application to warrant a due diligence inquiry by the lender. Plaintiff contended that the lender failed to make inquiry. In addition, Plaintiff contended that the loan secured by her real property was a consumer loan in violation of law.
    • Both parties claimed an ownership interest in a cannabis dispensary that was previously a community benefit non-profit company.
    • Dispute over the charges of a waste disposal company.
    • Conversion of collector watches.
    • Claim for accountant’s malpractice.
    • Claim of mismanagement of an LLC.
    • Plaintiff claimed that he paid the obligations of Defendant’s car restoration business in reliance of Defendant’s promise that Plaintiff would receive equity in the business.
    • Claim of misappropriation of HOA funds.
    • Breach of confidentiality agreement.
    • Claim for rescission of an agreement to place cooking recipes into a company owned by two parties.
    • Claim for wrongful termination of a homeowner’s insurance policy, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence by the broker and agent.
    • Claim of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and counterfeiting against the owner of a platform for the uploading of art work by a home entertainment company.
    • Interpretation of a buy-sell agreement regarding the purchase of an automatic dealership.
    • Dissolution of a mortgage loan brokerage firm.
    • Breach of a manager/artist contract. The contract provided for a post-termination period for commissions and the parties successfully negotiated to liquidate the uncertainty of that obligation.
    • Accounting of loans and claims from the proceeds of the sale of a business.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant installed a fire sprinkler in Plaintiff’s spa that was improperly set to activate below 200 degrees F. The standard of care required that the sprinkler have an activation temperature of 250 degrees. The sprinkler activated when there was no fire and caused $1.35 million in water damage.
    • Plaintiff became a passive shareholder of her company and had no part in the day-to-day activities of the company. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached an Equal Compensation Agreement by fraudulently manipulating and concealing information so that her share of compensation was less than Defendant, the other shareholder of the company. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant improperly managed the company resulting in a decline in profits.
    • Plaintiff alleged that Defendant defrauded her. Plaintiff contended that Defendant ingratiated herself with Plaintiff by claiming she was a psychic. Plaintiff was recently widowed and was susceptible to Defendant’s assertions. Plaintiff loaned Defendant $1.4 million and Defendant refused to repay this amount or to acknowledge the debt.
    • Plaintiff loaned money to Defendant, a high-end Beverly Hills jeweler, evidenced by six promissory notes totaling $4.5 million. Defendant made partial payments on the notes but ultimately defaulted on all six. Plaintiff claims an outstanding principal balance of $2.8 million plus interest.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral joint venture agreement. Plaintiff was obligated under the agreement to identify properties in Illinois for purchase for the purpose of rehabilitation/remodel and resale. Defendant was to provide all the financing for the purchase of the property and the costs of rehab. Defendant was to pay Plaintiff a $5,000 finder’s fee for each property and agreed to equally split with Plaintiff the proceeds from sale of each rehabbed property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not pay him his share from the sale proceeds nor did he pay for the rehab costs.
    • Plaintiff produces wireless networking equipment, mobile accessories, energy management, a broad USB and cable mix, and smart home products. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is an unauthorized retailer of Plaintiff’s products. Defendant sold Plaintiff’s products on the internet and misrepresented that the products were “new,” a designation that could only be used if the product being sold was supported by the original manufacturer’s warranties. Because Defendant was an unauthorized retailer of Plaintiff’s products, the products were not supported by Plaintiff’s warranties.
    • Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendants for the operation of a vending machine franchise. Defendants agreed to allow Plaintiffs to franchise Defendants’ hot burrito machines. Plaintiffs allege Defendants breached the agreement by failing to provide the promised vending machines or any supplies.
    • Plaintiff is a successful and highly respected Los Angeles based wholesale dealer of diamonds, colored stones, pearls and fine jewelry, with a good reputation based on more than three decades of experience and expertise. Plaintiff is the owner of an import company established in 1978. This company is well known in the wholesale jewelry industry and has offices in Bombay, India. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in a campaign of harassment, defamation and extortion of Plaintiff. Defendant has repeatedly asserted in various forums that Plaintiff is a criminal who has embezzled, aided terrorism and operates Ponzi schemes.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant are sisters who each own 50% of the shares in a company named as a Defendant in the action. Plaintiff alleges that her sister is misusing corporate funds. Plaintiff and Defendant are also engaged in a family disagreement over Defendant’s management of their mother’s funds. The mother suffers from Alzheimer’s disease.
    • Plaintiffs contracted with Defendant to serve as the builder on a real estate development project in Marina Del Rey. Under the parties’ contract, Plaintiffs agreed to build the project for $111 million. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has not paid the full amount owed under the contract.
    • Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with Defendant for the design, manufacture and installation of kitchen cabinetry. Plaintiff provided Defendant with a deposit of $40,000 for the contracted services. Defendant breached the agreement to perform the work by failing and refusing to timely provide shop drawings and designs that complied with the Project’s plans and specifications despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for the same. Plaintiff demanded that Defendant return the deposit and Defendant has refused.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entered into an oral agreement to sell a Maserati to him for $39,000. Plaintiff alleges that when he arrived to pay for and pick up the car, Defendant indicated he needed to pay $42,000 for the car. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant fraudulently represented that the car was being sold for $39,000. Plaintiff asks that the Court to order specific performance and award him damages for detrimentally relying on the fraudulently misrepresented sale price.
    • Plaintiff was previously involved in a divorce proceeding with her ex-husband. Plaintiff and her husband stipulated to the appointment of Defendant as the psychologist in the divorce proceeding who would evaluate custody issues involving Plaintiff’s children. Based on the stipulation, the Court entered an order appointing Defendant in the divorce proceeding as the custody evaluator. Prior to her appointment, Defendant was the subject of a pending investigation and later, an administrative action brought by the California Attorney General’s office for professional violations. Ultimately, Defendant’s license was revoked. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed fraud by failing to inform her of the pending investigation, administrative action and revocation order prior to the execution of the stipulation. Plaintiff alleges that she would never have agreed to Defendant as the custody evaluator or paid the fees had she known that Defendant was being investigated for professional conduct violations.
    • Plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell a business to Defendant for $5.5 million. Real property was pledged as collateral. Defendant transferred the collateral and sold it for $18 million without notice to Plaintiff or without payment to Plaintiff.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants embezzled funds from its accounts. Plaintiff alleges Defendants embezzled $115,000 in funds. Defendant used his position as managing member of Plaintiff to embezzle the funds.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the Operating Agreement for an LLC by making several major decisions without Plaintiff’s consultation or approval. The Operating Agreement requires that major decisions be made only after consultation and approval of 85% of the membership interests. “Major decisions” include sale of the property, financing or refinancing the property, amendment or formation of any business plan or budget for the LLC, any decisions relating to capital contributions and any expenditures more than $25,000. Defendant refinanced the property, removed equity from the property and commingled LLC funds with his own funds, and paid expenditures to himself in excess of $25,000. All of these actions were taken without the requisite 85% approval.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants negligently performed surgery on his German shepherd’s broken leg which resulted in the leg not healing properly. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants expressly promised that the dog would have 90% use of the injured leg after surgery. Instead, the dog could barely walk on his injured leg.
    • Plaintiff entrusted twelve cars to Defendant for repairs. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to return them. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages for the converted property.
    • Plaintiff, an insurance company, paid on a claim made by its insured for property damage sustained when a dishwasher manufactured by Defendant caught fire. Plaintiff filed this action for negligence, subrogation, indemnity and breach of warranty against the Defendant.
    • Plaintiffs founded a company with Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant wrongfully froze them out and has allegedly looted the company and mismanaged the company. As a result, numerous lawsuits and an SEC investigation have been brought against the company and its entities as well as the shareholders of the company. Plaintiffs allege numerous claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, violation of Labor Codes and indemnification alleged in the various lawsuits brought against them in connection with Defendant’s management of the company.
    • Plaintiff is suing as subrogee of its insured based upon a homeowner’s insurance policy. The homeowner hired Defendant to clear and unclog plumbing. Defendant allegedly did the work and told the homeowner that the plumbing issues were resolved and instructed them to run water through the house. When the homeowner followed the Defendant’s instructions, the plumbing throughout the house backed up and overflowed, damaging multiple rooms in the house. Plaintiff paid the claim for property damage and then sued Defendant in subrogation.
    • Claim under the lemon law over a failed transmission in a Mercedes.
    • Claim of kick-backs from vendors made against the managing director of a large annual convention show.
    • Plaintiff leased and subsequently purchased a vehicle from Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not conform to warranty, including defects which have resulted in malfunction of the electrical system, fluid oil leaks, excessive oil consumption, failure of the climate control unit, activation of the tire pressure monitoring system, activation of the chassis warning light, failure of the suspension system, and various “fit and finish” concerns.
    • Claim for unpaid attorney’s fees regarding the attorney’s successful defense of a fraud claim.
    • Conversion claim over a painting of Marilyn Monroe that was taken from Plaintiff and moved to Europe.
    • Home care infusion provider claims that an insurance company preapproved 8 infusions at a cost exceeding $1 million.
    • Fraud action concerning a loan broker handling a SBA loan.
    • Collection action against a boyfriend based on oral agreements to repay monies he borrowed from his girlfriend.
    • Claim of fraud against a bank based upon its promise to accept a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure when it was discovered the bank was actively marketing the property for lease; as the time ran on the Notice of Default, the bank refused to accept the deed.
    • Disgorgement claim against unlicensed contractor regarding the installation of sophisticated audio and video equipment in Plaintiff’s home.
    • Collection action on a Promissory Note.
    • Action to determine whether the money paid by Plaintiff for the development of oil and gas leases was a loan or an equity position in the venture.
    • Suit over the quality of internet advertisements and the placement of those advertisements on the search engines.
    • Plaintiff stored its business inventory in Defendant’s warehouse. Despite paying all storage fees and other expenses associated with the storage, Defendant refused to release the inventory to Plaintiff or to inform Plaintiff of the inventory’s location.
    • Petitioner requests that the Court appoint a provisional director under Corporations Code §308.
    • Parties were former domestic partners. Plaintiff filed an action for a 50% interest in the condominium where Defendant resided.
    • Plaintiff purchased a vehicle from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was marketed as a certified, pre-owned vehicle that had undergone comprehensive inspection. Plaintiff discovered after purchase that the vehicle was damaged in a prior accident, permeated with water damage and required time consuming repairs.
    • Plaintiff is Defendant’s son. Plaintiff alleges that he entrusted Defendant with his coin and stamp collections. Plaintiff alleges Defendant entered into an oral, written or implied in fact agreement to hold these collections for Plaintiff and to ensure their return to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Defendant has breached this agreement by selling the stamp collection, by refusing to disclose the sums received in those sales and refusing to acknowledge Plaintiff’s ownership of the coins in the parties’ combined collection.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant own and operate a dental practice together. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant improperly took out funds from the practice, been absent from his obligations to the practice due to personal issues and that he defaulted on a secured promissory note to Plaintiff in the amount of $1 million. Defendant’s promissory note was secured by a stock pledge agreement whereby Defendant pledged his shares in the dental practice to secure the $1 million promissory note.
    • An action involved a former 20-year romantic relationship between Plaintiff, a younger woman, model and actress, and Defendant, an older wealthy retired executive with residences throughout the world. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made promises for lifetime financial security and wealth for Plaintiff. Defendant abruptly ended the relationship and refused to honor those promises.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant gifted a painting to him. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the painting is his and that Defendant’s failure to return the painting constitutes conversion.

    view all


    • Claim that the contractor and architect failed to complete a home remodel.
    • Claim of defective remodel of Plaintiffs’ home resulting in having to hire another contractor to demolish the prior work and then complete the remodel.
    • Construction defect claim filed by homeowner against the contractor and all sub-contractors regarding water intrusion into a newly constructed home.
    • Plaintiff hired Defendant as general contractor on a commercial remodel project. Defendant agreed to remodel commercial premises for Plaintiff’s restaurant. Defendant agreed that the project would not cost more than $375,000, that they would only use properly licensed subcontractors to perform the work in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the general contracting agreement in several ways: Hiring unlicensed subcontractors, the work was defective, the City of Santa Monica cited the project several times for various construction defects and Defendant went over budget and past schedule. In addition, Defendant misappropriated progress payments, resulting in various claims by the subcontractors against Plaintiff.
    • Dispute between contractor and homeowner over payment for labor and materials.
    • Plaintiff entered into an agreement to provide construction services on a public works project. Plaintiff allegedly encountered several delays to the construction schedule due to events outside of Plaintiff’s control, including substantial revisions by the County to the construction sequence for installation of water lines. The County also directed Plaintiff to remove a portion of the pipeline for further investigation of cracking in the interior cement lining and corrosion in the pipe, even though Plaintiff and the pipe manufacturer had already submitted repair plans. Defendant County allegedly breached the parties’ agreement by refusing to pay sums due under the contract, including the sums accrued for changes in the plans and removal of the pipe for investigation.
    • Plaintiff entered into a Residential Purchase Agreement to purchase property constructed by Defendant. Plaintiff would be the first occupant of the newly constructed home. Plaintiff alleges the house was negligently constructed. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants knew of these defects and intentionally withheld those facts and made affirmative misrepresentations regarding the property to induce Plaintiff’s purchase.
    • Plaintiff, a contractor, made a subcontract agreement with Defendant for glazing work at an office building project. Plaintiff’s bid for the subcontract was based on materials from another Defendant who manufactured the materials in China. After performing work under that subcontract, the Defendant instructed Plaintiff to cease work and submit a re-bid based on domestic materials. A dispute arose between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the existence of an enforceable subcontract, as well as over Defendant’s obligation to pay for work performed.
    • Plaintiff was engaged in the business of developing real property, including the construction of a single-family residence located in Beverly Hills. Plaintiff directly contracted with Defendant for the purchase, delivery and installation of a “storefront” glass wall, doors and windows for the Property. Defendant represented that he was experienced in installing the type of glass, windows and doors of the type required for the Property and drove Plaintiff to several locations where there were examples of his prior work. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not order or install a glass “storefront” wall as the parties agreed, but instead substituted a different and inferior product without Plaintiff’s knowledge and consent. Defendant also negligently and improperly installed the glass wall panes, numerous doors and windows. Defendant also failed to timely complete the work. Defendant also falsely represented that he held a valid contractor’s license for performance of the work, when in fact he did not. Defendant also hired unlicensed individuals to work on the project.

    view all


    • Wrongful termination and wage and hour claims.
    • Wage and hour claim by apartment house manager.
    • Though he signed an Independent Contractor’s Agreement, a 30-year worker claims he was an employee and sues for wrongful termination and claims he was not paid minimum wage.
    • Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a registered nurse supervisor. Later, she was promoted to Director of Nursing with a salary of $125,000 per year. Thereafter, she alleged that she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant for refusing to put fraudulent information on patients’ charts.
    • Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant on a commission basis. One year later, they were presented with new employment contracts; the commission rate is less than when they were first employed. Plaintiffs refused to sign the new employment contracts and were terminated. Plaintiffs contend their termination and the new agreements were presented to them due to their age. Plaintiffs were aged 64 and 65 years old. Plaintiffs believe Defendant had an employment practice of reducing its employees’ salaries for workers over the age of 40.
    • Plaintiff alleges that she was a customer at Defendant’s design store. While waiting for her artwork, one of Defendant’s employees allegedly assaulted and battered her. Defendant was made aware of the situation and failed to reprimand or take any action against the employee.
    • Writ of Mandate Petition was filed to reinstate a university professor who was fired by the President of the university in violation of the notice procedures set forth in the university rules and regulations.
    • Petitioner obtained a Labor Commission award against Respondent. Petitioner requested entry of judgment based on that award.
    • Plaintiff was a live-in household employee of Defendant. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Plaintiff would be employed exclusively by Defendant to cook, run errands and drive Defendant’s children. Plaintiff was at dinner with Defendant and her children at a restaurant when she had to take a personal call. When she returned to the dinner table, Defendant allegedly flew into a rage and verbally abused Plaintiff for leaving the dinner table. Defendant fired Plaintiff that night and told her to leave the home by midnight. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s termination of her employment was without cause and in breach of their agreement.
    • Plaintiff is a salesman who was employed for over 20 years by Defendant as a mergers and acquisitions broker. Defendant terminated Plaintiff from his position and refused to pay Plaintiff his full commissions. Instead, Defendant agreed to pay him a lesser sum and only if Plaintiff signed a release absolving Defendant from any liability for improperly deeming him as an independent contractor instead of as an employee. Because of this intentional misclassification, Defendant did not pay the minimum wage, payroll taxes and other obligations for Plaintiff.
    • Petitioner obtained an award against Respondent for unpaid wages from the Labor Commissioner. Petitioner filed a petition to enter judgment on the Labor Commissioner Award. Judgment was entered.
    • Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in various capacities, including as a personal assistant, administrative assistant, chauffeur and public relations assistant. Plaintiff claims he suffered a barrage of verbal and emotional abuse from Defendants, was never paid overtime and was never timely paid his wages. Plaintiff alleges he consistently had to demand payment from Defendants; sometimes they would comply with the demands and yet at other times they refused to do so.
    • Plaintiff obtained a Labor Commission Order awarding him unpaid wages, liquidated damages, business expenses and interest. Defendant filed an action seeking a trial de novo. The Court held a hearing on the petition and found in Plaintiff's favor, although it reduced the amount of award from $34,000 to $28,000.
    • Plaintiff was an employee of a hotel in Santa Monica. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated when she responded to false accusations made against her, including that she was inebriated on the premises and misused a hotel room.
    • Plaintiff obtained an award against Respondent for $50,000 in wages, expenses and interest from the Labor Commissioner. As required under Labor Code Section 98.2(e), the Labor Commissioner filed the order and award with the court clerk and judgment was immediately entered on it. Pursuant to the judgment, the court issued a Writ of Execution and Plaintiff levied upon the bank account of the Respondent.
    • Plaintiff was Defendant’s patient for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Upon her release, Defendants employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated her in retaliation when she reported Defendants’ insurance fraud, embezzlement, mishandling of clients and drug use.
    • Plaintiffs allege a failure to pay them proper wages under both California and federal labor laws. Defendants were the movie production company and payroll company who handled Plaintiffs’ employment and payment.
    • Plaintiff alleges she suffered discrimination based on sex, national origin, retaliation, age and disability while she was employed by Defendant.

    view all


    • Misappropriation of an actor's image.
    • Claim for diversion of corporate opportunity presented to a music publishing company.
    • Mother of a rap singer paid a record producer all costs associated with the production and marketing of a rap album consisting of 12 tracks sung by her daughter with featured signers. When the producer failed to complete production of the album, the mother sued for breach of contract and fraud.
    • Claim that Defendants were responsible for a judgment under theories of fraudulent transfer and alter ego.
    • Dispute between film producers over the true-up accounting regarding the production of two feature films.
    • Plaintiff purchased certain intellectual property rights to a book from non-parties to the action. Plaintiff alleges that the purchase was a fraud because those non-parties did not possess any rights to the book. Plaintiff claims it relied upon a letter drafted by the Defendant on his letterhead when it purchased the rights to the book. Plaintiff asserts the letter was drafted with the knowledge and intent that potential purchasers would rely upon this letter. Plaintiff claims Defendant drafted the letter without any reasonable grounds for believing that the non-parties possessed the intellectual property rights to the book.
    • Plaintiff is a film actress who starred in a film produced, directed and distributed by Defendants. Plaintiff is most well-known for appearing in an HBO series. Plaintiff alleges that she was hired as an actress on Defendants’ film. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached their agreement with her and caused her emotional distress by requiring her to perform a stunt in the film without giving her prior notice and over her objections.
    • Plaintiff hired Defendant for legal representation in his negotiations for the acquisition of certain rights to a motion picture about a martial arts film star. Defendant represented both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s business partner in negotiations with a production company that purportedly owned the rights to the motion picture. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed malpractice when he failed to obtain a waiver of conflict of interest from both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s partner. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant committed malpractice when it failed to ascertain the true owner of the rights to the movie. Because of Defendant’s failure, Plaintiff paid $1 million to the production company and $1 million to his partner, despite never actually having acquired the rights.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral partnership agreement to operate a multimedia studio. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the partnership agreement by locking Plaintiff out of the studio facilities and refusing to acknowledge or honor the general partnership agreement.
    • Plaintiff, a film studio, alleges that Defendant induced two of its employees to breach their fixed-term employment agreements to work for Defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant continued to induce Plaintiff’s employees to leave Plaintiff’s employ despite a cease and desist notice.
    • Plaintiff is an author and a screenwriter who wrote a treatment for a film about a father and son who are lawyers. He contends that he presented the treatment to his friend, who in turn gave the treatment to a producer at a film studio. Plaintiff never heard anything further until he saw an advertisement for a film that followed his plotline. The film was produced by the same studio as the producer who received his treatment. Plaintiff contends that Defendants produced a film based on his treatment without giving him credit or compensation.
    • Plaintiff is the owner of the master recording of a well-known song. Plaintiff licensed the master to Defendant record company for use in a film. The license was limited to that film. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misappropriated the master when it licensed it to another record company for use under blanket public performance licenses.
    • Plaintiffs and Defendants were producers of an action film. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants excluded Plaintiffs from the creative decisions on the project in violation of their agreement. Defendants recast the film so that it became a “programmer” film, which is a film made according to a plot template. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily step aside and relinquish complete control of the production to Defendants in exchange for a fixed and contingent compensation for the film and any sequels. The agreement was memorialized in writing. Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiffs were entitled to a fixed producer fee of $400,000 with payments starting eight weeks prior to the commencement of principal photography, and a contingent producer fee equal to 2.5% of the Producer Net Profits. Plaintiffs were also entitled to receive accountings concerning its Backend Participation and distribution of the project. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached the Agreement in multiple ways. Plaintiffs contend Defendants (1) failed to provide them accountings of the Backend Participation; (2) failed to contact them when they began developing a sequel so that Plaintiffs could exercise their first negotiation right to serve as a producer on the film; (3) failed to obtain their consent prior to listing Plaintiffs as a producer on the film; and (4) failed to pay Plaintiffs a fixed producer fees due in connection with the sequel.
    • Plaintiff invested $15 million into an unfinished motion picture. Defendants possessed the incomplete film materials and they controlled the rights to the picture. Defendants have refused Plaintiff’s financing plans to complete the film and they are not proceeding with development of the picture.
    • A film actress sued for breach of contract alleging the production company who hired her to act in a bio-pic did not obtain a license for her to travel to Cuba to make the film.
    • A talent agent sued for misappropriation of model images in an advertisement of Halloween costumes. The agency agreement licensed Defendant for a fixed term for use of the images; Defendant exceeded that term.
    • Misappropriation claim by an academy award winning film actress for the use of her photo to sell a ring that looked similar to the engagement ring she received.
    • Plaintiffs are father and daughter. Plaintiffs paid $100,000 to Defendant to record and produce seven songs. Defendant failed to deliver the seven mastered songs. Further, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant breached its agreement to arrange for a photo shoot and to create a website to advertise the songs.
    • Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into various agreements, including an Employment Agreement and an Exclusivity Agreement whereby Defendant was to provide Plaintiffs with completed film and television projects in exchange for Plaintiffs’ investment. Plaintiffs made financial arrangements to base Defendant and his family in Los Angeles. Defendant provided some content under the agreements but thereafter refused to provide any more content or services, desiring instead to do solo projects or to collaborate with others in violation of the Exclusivity Agreement.
    • Contractual dispute between watch manufacturer/distributor and a film studio over the right to sell watches with a logo from a well-known television series.
    • Plaintiff hired Defendant to perform film editing on 30 hours of original film footage. Plaintiff paid Defendant $30,000 pursuant to the parties’ agreement however Defendant failed to render the film editing services or return the original film footage.
    • Business dispute over the manufacture and sale of celebrity trading cards.
    • Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendants to obtain a loan to produce a film. Plaintiffs paid $150,000 into escrow as a service fee for procurement of the financing. The $150,000 was to be released to Defendants upon the funding of the loan. Plaintiffs allege that the loan was never funded, and Defendants have refused to return the $150,000.
    • Claim by the business manager of a television actress for breach of an oral agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would represent the actress in exchange for a percentage of her earnings. After appearing in a well-known television series, production stopped, and the show was syndicated. The Plaintiff now claims he is entitled to a commission for the backend participation that he negotiated for the actress.
    • Petitioner paid $900,000 as a guarantee for film rights to a picture owned by Defendants. A dispute arose as to whether that amount was reasonable, and Petitioner initiated arbitration as required under their agreement. Petitioner obtained an arbitration award against Defendants in the total amount of $925,000 which included attorney’s fees and interest.
    • Plaintiff wrote a screenplay based on a successful television series from the 1960’s. Defendants entered into an agreement for an option to buy the screenplay and Plaintiff’s other research materials. Defendants were also required to provide Plaintiff with credit for his work. Defendants allegedly breached the agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff and failing to give him credit for his work.
    • Plaintiffs were employed at a production company owned by their father, a successful film producer. Plaintiffs are the sons of the producer and they allege that they were terminated in retaliation to their demand for an accounting by their father and for questioning certain improper financial transactions.
    • Plaintiff, an actor/bodybuilder alleges that Defendants have misappropriated his name and likeness in marketing their health and fitness products. Defendants’ products are marketed under the first name of the actor/bodybuilder and they have used his likeness in their advertisements.

    view all


    • Division of assets and settlement of spousal support.


    • Dispute between attorneys over the fees generated from handling a personal injury contingent fee.
    • Plaintiff provided legal services to Defendant. Defendant failed to pay for those services and publicly accused Plaintiff of being a thief who stole Defendant’s money. Plaintiff sued for his fees and for defamation. Defendant filed a claim for malpractice.
    • Petitioner provided legal services to Defendant in connection with her marital dissolution proceeding. The parties entered into a retainer agreement. Respondent failed to pay for legal services rendered in the amount of $400,000. The retainer agreement contains an arbitration provision applicable to the parties’ failure to pay for the legal services.
    • Plaintiff is suing as assignee of a medical provider who treated Defendant’s client in connection with a prior personal injury lawsuit. The prior lawsuit settled, and Defendant failed to pay the medical lien due to Plaintiff’s assignor. Plaintiff filed an action for recovery on the lien.
    • Plaintiff previously represented Defendant in a lawsuit involving the death of Defendant’s pet at a veterinary hospital. Plaintiff represented Defendant pursuant to a limited representation agreement that limited Plaintiff’s participation in the litigation: Plaintiff was to serve as trial counsel. The action settled after several days of pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff received two settlement checks payable to Plaintiff’s client trust account. Plaintiff alleges he has an attorney’s lien over the settlement funds and claims $80,000 in unpaid fees. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s fees.
    • Plaintiff served as a consultant for Defendant on a construction defect dispute involving Defendant’s Arizona properties. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay her in accordance with their agreement and sought $350,000 in damages. Defendant responded claiming Plaintiff's "consulting" services were in fact legal services. Defendant asserts Plaintiff's performance of these services was the unlicensed practice of law in that Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney in Arizona.

    view all


    • Both passenger elevators in an apartment house needed extensive repair and could not be used over a two-week period. Plaintiffs claim that the ownership and management of the building was aware of their physical disabilities and that the elevators were maintained without regard for their needs.
    • Indemnification: The City sought indemnification based on a building permit issued to a building contractor for monies paid by the City to settle wrongful death claims.
    • Plaintiff operates a mobile home park. Plaintiff alleges that the city orally promised to renew his mobile home park permit but ultimately refused to renew the permit. Plaintiff filed an action on grounds that the permit was wrongfully denied.
    • Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants to enforce deed restrictions recorded against the subject property by Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest. The prior owners illegally demolished a five-unit building that was subject to the rent control laws and constructed a 16-unit apartment building. The new building was developed in violation of law and in response, the City of Santa Monica refused to issue a certificate of occupancy. To obtain a certificate of occupancy and avoid litigation by the city for this violation, the prior owners entered into a settlement agreement that required them to deed restrict four of the 16 units to be continuously subject to the rent control ordinance. The deed restriction also required that one of those four units be continuously rented to a low-income household. The deed restriction was recorded against the subject property. Defendant acquired the subject property and is the property’s current owner. Defendant has not complied with the deed restrictions. Plaintiff filed this action for declaratory relief seeking an order declaring that the deed restrictions apply despite the change in ownership to Defendant.
    • Petitioner was arrested and detained by Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Petitioner is a disabled, 58-year-old veteran who relies on a cane to walk. When he was arrested due to a neighbor’s report that he was banging on their common wall, the arresting officers did not let him take his cane. As a result, Petitioner was unable to walk properly during the arrest, his incarceration and his release. When he was finally released, he was forced to wait three hours for his daughter to pick him up because he had no walking aide. Petitioner sought counsel regarding any potential claim he had based on Respondents’ failure to accommodate his disability. Petitioner was only able to locate counsel at the Disability Rights Legal Center, 11 months after accrual of the claim. Petitioner filed a Petition for relief from the Government Code claim presentation requirements.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly classified its business as “Professions/Occupations,” subjecting it to an annual city tax rate of 5.07%. Plaintiff applied to correct the classification and asked to be reclassified as a “Multimedia Business,” which would subject it to a city tax rate of 1.01%. Defendant’s Office of Finance agreed that Plaintiff was incorrectly classified but refused to issue a refund for overpayments.
    • Action challenging the parking ordinance of the City of West Hollywood which restricts the time and place to park food trucks as being discriminatory against the owners of the food trucks.
    • Petitioner owns a commercial building in the City of Santa Monica. Respondent Santa Monica Landmarks Commission made an application to itself to designate Petitioner’s building and property as a landmark. The Landmarks Commission granted the application and deemed by a unanimous vote that Petitioners’ property is deemed a landmark. Petitioner filed an appeal with Respondent City of Santa Monica. Respondent granted Petitioners’ appeal, reversed the Landmarks Commission’s approval of its own application and remanded the matter to the Landmarks Commission. Petitioners contend the City of Santa Monica was only statutorily authorized to either approve or disapprove the Landmark Commission’s prior determination and it had no authority to remand the matter. After the remand from the City, the Landmarks Commission reconvened and rejected the application. There were only 4 out of 7 of the Commissioners voting on the matter due to the recusal of 3 commissioners. Because the application could only be approved by a majority of the 7-member committee, the application could only be approved if all 4 of the remaining commissioners voted in favor of it but only 3 voted in favor of approval. As a result, the Landmarks Commission rejected the application. The Santa Monica Conservancy appealed the denial of the application, standing in place of the Landmarks Commission. The Conservancy’s appeal was heard, and the Respondent City reversed the denial, voting in favor of approving the application to deem Petitioners’ property a landmark.
    • Petitioner seeks an order appointing a receiver to oversee an abandoned property located in West Hollywood. The owner of the property is deceased. The property remains in her name and no probate case has been filed. The only living relative is the decedent’s daughter. Petitioner and the daughter have been in contact about remediating the property, but she refused to do so. As a result, Petitioner asks that the Court appoint a receiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code §17980.7(c).
    • Petitioner owns an apartment building located in the City of Santa Monica. Petitioner filed a Removal Permit Application to remove the property from the purview of the Santa Monica Rent Control Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Removal Application was overseen and shepherded through the process by an attorney with the Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Plaintiff’s Removal Application was granted, and the Board indicated its decision was final. Based on the decision, Petitioner renovated the property and obtained financing. He represented to lenders that the property was not subject to rent control. After 20 years of being led to believe that a Removal Permit Application permanently removed the property from the purview of rent control, the Santa Monica Rent Control indicated that the property was in fact subject to the rent control. The Board indicated it was subject to rent control because the property had been returned to the rental market. Based on this finding, two tenants in the building filed complaints with the Rent Control Board for excess rent payments. Thereafter, the Board found in favor of the tenants and Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Review of the Board’s decision.

    view all


    • Couple sues their HOA claiming discrimination and the board’s failure to abide by the CC&Rs.
    • Plaintiff owns a unit in a 5-unit condominium building. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly imposed an assessment against her unit in the amount of $18,000 for “repair costs caused by demolition work in your unit.” Defendants are the owners of the damaged unit and they are also members of the HOA board. Plaintiff claims this HOA “assessment” was a damage award that Defendants imposed against Plaintiff in violation of the By-Laws in that it was made under the guise of an assessment.
    • Plaintiff claims that his HOA and its individual board members have failed to perform their duties and comply with the CC&Rs. Plaintiff alleges that the HOA has not performed appropriate repairs, failed to properly conduct meetings and spent funds in violation of the CC&Rs on improper expenditures.
    • Plaintiff was a board member of the HOA. Plaintiff resided in a unit held in the name of his wife as trustee of a trust. The unit was held as her sole and separate property. When the other board members discovered Plaintiff was not an owner of the subject unit, they removed him from the board. Ownership of a unit is required to serve as a board member of the HOA. The remaining members of the board issued a letter informing other homeowners of Plaintiff’s removal without identifying him by name. The letter set forth the specific facts surrounding Plaintiff’s removal and the legal grounds for doing so under the CC&Rs and the By-laws. The letter was prepared by counsel for the HOA. Plaintiff filed an action against the individual board members and the attorney claiming that the letter was defamatory in that he was falsely accused of fraudulently misrepresenting his status as a homeowner.
    • Plaintiffs own and occupy a common interest development consisting of a four-story building. Defendants are the HOA and the individual members of the HOA. Plaintiffs allege that their unit was flooded three times when Defendants failed to install an adequate drainage system for the building. Defendants also allegedly failed to maintain adequate insurance to cover Plaintiffs’ damages. Finally, at various times before the members of the HOA, Defendants humiliated Plaintiffs by falsely accusing them of embezzling monies and asking for an unreasonable amount of damages in connection with the flooding.
    • Plaintiff has owned a condo unit in the development for many years. She alleges that she and other elderly and disabled residents repeatedly complained to the Defendant HOA about the weight and pressure of the front door to the building. Plaintiff contends that she attempted to hold open the front door while retrieving her paper. Due to the door’s weight and the pressure required to open it, Plaintiff lost her balance and fell, breaking her right femur. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages for the injuries she has suffered due to the Defendants’ failure to remedy the weight of the door.
    • Plaintiff is an HOA and Defendant is a unit owner. Defendant has allegedly breached the CC&Rs by installing hardwood flooring without the consent of the HOA. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to enjoin Defendant from proceeding with installation of hardwood floors in his unit.
    • Plaintiff purchased a condo unit and Defendant is the HOA. Plaintiff’s unit began experiencing water intrusion and Defendant HOA attempted to repair the roof to resolve the problem, but all attempts failed. Defendant HOA then attempted to levy a special assessment on the condo owners to replace the roof. Plaintiff refused to pay the special assessment on grounds that it was improperly levied under the CC&Rs.
    • HOA sues to foreclosure on liens to enforce non-payment of HOA Special Assessments.
    • Petitioner HOA seeks a court order pursuant to CC Section 1356 permitting them to pass amended CC&Rs by less than the required 75% under the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs currently in place were adopted prior to adoption of the Davis Stirling Act. The HOA desired an Amendment of the CC&Rs to incorporate and reflect the new law. 73% of Petitioner’s total membership voted in favor of passing the amendments. The passage was short by one vote and this is possibly attributable to the fact that two of the units in the building are in foreclosure or bank owned. Petitioner asks that the Court approve the amendment based on the vote.
    • Petitioner’s interests in two condos were sold pursuant to a foreclosure sale by the HOA. The foreclosure sale was prompted by Petitioner’s failure to pay HOA assessments. Respondent purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Petitioner is now seeking to redeem his interest in the sold property pursuant to CCP Section 729.060. Petitioner filed this petition for court determination of the amount required to redeem Petitioner’s interest.
    • Homeowner challenges the decisions of the HOA Board who contend they are protected by the Business Judgment Rule.
    • Petitioner seeks an order allowing passage of restated by-laws at a reduced percentage under the current by-laws. Current by-laws require passage by 2/3 of the voting members, which would be 158 “yes” votes of the 237 members. Petitioner submitted the restated by-laws for a vote and 138 members voted for restatement, 38 members voted against it and 2 were deemed invalid. Only 178 members out of the 237 voting members cast ballots. Petitioner argues the restatement is necessary to comply with the Davis-Stirling Act. Petitioner contends the necessary vote cannot be obtained because of voter apathy.
    • Plaintiff HOA filed this action against the Defendants for malicious prosecution. Defendants had reported a leak in their condo unit and filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging that the HOA did not repair the Defendants’ unit because of their nationality, ethnicity and religion. The Fair Housing complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff maintains the Defendants knew they had no grounds to file the complaint, because any claims were covered by a prior settlement between the parties.
    • Plaintiff (tenant), a famous convicted felon, leased a condo unit from the other Plaintiff (landlord). After the lease was executed, Defendant HOA passed an amendment to the CC&Rs prohibiting any owner from leasing or selling a unit to a convicted felon. Despite this amendment, the lease was renewed. In response, Defendant HOA imposed monetary penalties against the landlord and revoked all of the tenant’s common area privileges. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, intentional interference with contractual relationship and declaratory relief.

    view all


    • Subrogation claim arising out of the defective construction and installation of the wrong fire prevention sprinkler.
    • Action against insurance carrier for fire damage to Plaintiff’s home.
    • Plaintiff’s insured owned certain residential property in the canyon near Mulholland Drive. Defendant was hired to build a retaining wall on the property and did so negligently. As a result, Plaintiff’s insured was required to demolish and rebuild the wall. The insured submitted a claim for the negligently built wall, which Plaintiff accepted. Plaintiff now proceeds against the Defendant for recovery of the cost of the wall.
    • Plaintiffs suffered property damage to their residence due to a failed city sewer line and a faulty backwater valve on the property. Plaintiffs allege Defendant denied their claim for breach of their insurance agreement. Defendant denied the claim on grounds that the source of the water intrusion was outside of the plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiffs argue the claim was improperly denied, because the water intrusion would not have occurred into their home were it not for the failed backwater valve, which was located on their property.
    • Plaintiff was involved in a car accident with a non-party whose insurance did not cover all of Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff collected $100,000 from that carrier. In this action, Plaintiff is now seeking an additional $100,000 from his underinsured motorist policy with Defendant.
    • Plaintiff’s mother’s home was damaged by a fire. At the time of the fire, Plaintiff’s mother was deceased. Plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Defendants for damage arising from the fire. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully adjusted the claim and violated their fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges Defendants misrepresented portions of the claim process, fraudulently induced Plaintiff to sign a restoration services agreement, and deceived Plaintiff regarding its right to claim additional living expenses. Plaintiff contends Defendants improperly adjusted her claim in bad faith.

    view all


    • Model claimed a photographer misappropriated her image in a photo wherein she was wearing a mask around her eyes and rabbit ears. The parties did not have any written documentation as to the use of the photo and the photographer used it on t-shirts sold by a nationwide clothing chain.
    • Misappropriation of trade secrets concerning the use of a contractor’s profit margin in order to outbid the contractor for a large special events contract.


    • Settled a habitability claim.
    • Claim of breach of contract for failing to enforce an option term of a lease by the successor landlord.
    • Claim that landlord unreasonably withheld consent to lease assignment.
    • Claim for reduction in rent due to habitability issues.
    • Landlord rented unit in a light industrial building without a proper Certificate of Occupancy and unpermitted work. Tenant sued for refund of all rents paid plus treble damages under the Los Angeles City Municipal Code.
    • Tenant claimed that her premises were uninhabitable due to the presence of mold caused by leaks from her roof and air conditioner. Further Tenant claimed that Landlord did not timely remediate the mold.
    • Landlord and Tenant dispute the cost and responsibility over build-outs for a restaurant.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant were romantically involved. Plaintiff invited Defendant to stay at the subject premises. Plaintiff and Defendant terminated their relationship and Plaintiff has withdrawn his consent to Defendant’s occupation of the premises and filed an unlawful detainer to remove her from the premises.
    • Plaintiffs leased a residential unit from Defendants pursuant to a written lease agreement. The unit was subject to rent control laws. Defendants attempted to remove Plaintiffs’ unit from the market and issued a Notice to Withdraw from Rental Market. Plaintiffs obtained a one-year extension for his tenancy due to his disability from the City of Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department and Plaintiffs’ tenancy was extended.
    • After obtaining the extension, Defendants allegedly engaged in multiple acts to drive Plaintiffs from the premises, including removing the washer and dryer from the building and leasing the unit above them to a tenant who had a vicious attack dog. Plaintiffs were ultimately constructively evicted by Defendants’ conduct and they left the premises.
    • Plaintiffs are residents of a 17-unit apartment building located in Santa Monica. After Plaintiffs went into possession, Defendants purchased the building. The building is subject to the Santa Monica Rent Control Ordinance and tenants’ rents are subject to maximum allowable rent. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants purchased the property with the intent of driving rent-controlled tenants from the building through harassment and interference with their quiet enjoyment of their residence. Defendant initiated construction without proper permitting, created conditions that were dangerous to the tenants’ health and interfered with the tenants’ ability to quietly enjoy their leasehold interests. Ultimately, tenant complaints to the City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board resulted in hearings on the issues of rent adjustments and rental conditions. The Board found Defendants had endangered the tenants and interfered with their tenancy by exposing them to lead and asbestos, as well as noise and vibration disturbances, and removing and interfering with security mechanisms. Defendants have not abated these dangerous conditions and Plaintiffs filed an action in response.
    • Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants harassed her based on her national origin, race and ethnicity. Plaintiff claims Defendants continuously interfered with the quiet enjoyment of her premises.
    • Plaintiff is suing the assignee of a commercial lease and guaranty of that lease. Defendant personally guaranteed the commercial lease. Plaintiff alleges an outstanding balance on the lease of $40,000.
    • Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendant pursuant to a written lease agreement for a term of one year. Thereafter, the parties agreed that the lease would be subject to two separate, self-executing 6-month extensions. Defendant also agreed to provide specific high-end services to building residents, including private elevators and security. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide all services promised, despite Plaintiff’s payment of full rent.
    • Plaintiff is a tenant at Defendants' rent-controlled premises in West Hollywood. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully evicted him, raised his rent in violation of rent control ordinances, and verbally and physically harassed him.
    • Dispute between landlord-tenant over the wrongful withholding of a security deposit.
    • Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for tenant harassment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant advertised a condo unit on craigslist.com for rental; obtaining application fees, deposits and first month’s rent. Once the lease was signed, Defendant began to harass the Plaintiff until he prematurely terminated the tenancy. Defendant then refused to return the deposits. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant followed this course of action against several tenants. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s harassment included threats of bodily harm.
    • Plaintiffs leased a single-family dwelling from Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the home was poorly maintained and suffered from numerous defects and conditions that rendered it uninhabitable. While these conditions existed, Plaintiffs paid excessive rent to Defendant. Plaintiffs vacated the premises after Defendant repeatedly refused to remedy the defects. After Plaintiffs vacated the premises, Defendant sent threatening emails, phone calls and text messages, making various improper demands and threats of improper litigation. Defendant also allegedly attempted to extort sums with these threats of litigation. In response, Plaintiffs paid $10,000 to mitigate any lost rental damages suffered by Defendants. Despite this payment, Defendant continued to harass Plaintiffs with threats that they would be responsible for various costs if they did not continue paying rent. Plaintiffs were forced to retain counsel and filed an action to stop Defendant’s continued threats and harassment.
    • Landlord-tenant dispute over the term of the lease.
    • Plaintiff is the insurer of a restaurant operating in the City of Santa Monica. A fire broke out in the duct/flue system of the restaurant which spread throughout the premises, resulting in substantial damages to the Premises.
    • Plaintiff paid the restaurant owners under the insurance policy and the restaurant owners assigned their right to recover any sums from any responsible parties to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an action for subrogation against Defendant who built out the restaurant including installation of the kitchen exhaust system, the ducts, fans and flues; against the Defendant who cleaned the kitchen exhaust system at the premises on a regular basis, including the ducts, flues and exhaust fans; and against the Defendant who moved the exhaust fans on the roof and added additional ducts and flues to the exhaust system pursuant to a written agreement with the landlord.
    • Landlord-tenant dispute over an option agreement.
    • Right of privacy claim by tenant against his landlord for giving over information to other tenants that he was taken away from his unit by the police on a “5150 hold.”
    • Unlawful Detainer action wherein the tenant claims that the premises are uninhabitable because 8 of the 9 bathrooms are not functional.
    • Unlawful Detainer action where the tenant claims that the premises are uninhabitable because the shower water, for no apparent reason, changed temperature from mild to extremely hot causing the tenant to sustain third degree burns.
    • Unlawful Detainer action based upon an unauthorized person in possession of the property.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of harassing his tenant to force her out of her rent controlled- apartment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant harassed her in the past by issuing her a letter accusing her of allowing an unauthorized person to stay in her apartment. The letter threatened eviction if she did not cure this alleged breach of lease agreement. After Plaintiff denied violating the lease and asserted that she merely allowed a guest to stay at the apartment for no more than 10 consecutive days at a time, Defendant installed security cameras. Plaintiff filed an action for tenant harassment because she claimed she felt unsafe and that the cameras invaded her right to privacy.
    • Plaintiff purchased a single-family home at foreclosure sale. Defendant is the former owner and current occupant of the premises. Plaintiff served Defendant with a 3-day notice to quit per CCP Section 1161a, governing post-foreclosure evictions. Defendant and other occupants are still in possession. Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action.
    • Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendant. Defendant marketed the property as a luxury property with luxury amenities and services. Plaintiff alleges that contrary to Defendant’s representations, the complex was in fact marketed to college students and did not maintain the luxurious environment advertised. Specifically, Plaintiff’s neighboring tenants committed various offenses and breaches of lease without consequence.

    view all


    • Claim that the attorney failed to advise the client when the statute of limitations would run.
    • Legal malpractice dispute regarding an underlying family law matter.
    • Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed legal malpractice when they negligently represented them in a prior action. The prior action involved a collectible claim for breach of contract.
    • Plaintiff alleges legal malpractice against Defendants. Defendants represented Plaintiff in a prior lawsuit concerning a failed real estate deal. According to Plaintiff, Defendants committed legal malpractice by suing the wrong party and pursuing other improper litigation tactics.
    • Plaintiff hired Defendant to represent her in a legal malpractice case against another attorney. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant mishandled her case against the prior attorney and misrepresented the nature and cost of his legal services. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the retainer agreement when he refused to draft an opposition to a demurrer, filed a First Amended Complaint, failed to obtain entry of default against the prior attorney, and failed to keep Plaintiff informed about the status of the case.
    • Plaintiff retained Defendant as her attorney to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiff was facing foreclosure on her property and wanted to file the bankruptcy in hopes of saving her home. Plaintiff alleges that no automatic stay was in place after Defendant attempted unsuccessfully to properly file a bankruptcy petition. As a result, Plaintiff lost her property in foreclosure.
    • Plaintiffs sued former counsel for professional negligence and breach of contract. Defendants were retained to represent Plaintiffs in a prior federal action which sought to impose alter ego liability against Plaintiffs for an outstanding judgment. Plaintiffs allege Defendants negligently represented them in the prior federal action in numerous ways, including failure to assert the statute of limitations, failure to raise the defense of an arbitration agreement and failure to raise the bankruptcy stay of the judgment debtor in the federal action.
    • Claim for legal malpractice and fraud wherein Plaintiff contends that a group of attorneys conspired to overcharge him for incompetent work.
    • Claim against a defense attorney after a jury returned a verdict of $1 million against him.
    • Claim against a personal injury attorney for delaying the filing of an action which caused the claim to be barred by the statute of limitations.
    • Claim against attorney for failing to raise all defenses to a fraud claim.
    • Plaintiff is suing as the successor-in-interest of her deceased husband. Plaintiff alleges that her husband, as a silent partner and investor in a financial company, hired Defendant attorney to prepare and file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of the financial company. The work was never done and Plaintiff claims malpractice against Defendant.
    • Plaintiffs hired Defendant to represent them in litigation. Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached her duties under the retainer agreement and failed to inform Plaintiffs of the status of their case, failed to appear at hearings and failed to expeditiously litigate the matter.

    view all


    • Claim of lack of informed consent regarding a dental procedure.
    • A foreign metal object was found embedded in the skin of the surgical area performed by Defendant four years prior.
    • Plaintiff filed suit for medical malpractice claiming that while Defendant doctors operated on his right leg they kept his left leg in the lithotomy position for over 8 hours resulting in permanent injury to that leg.
    • Plaintiff alleges medical malpractice based on Defendants’ performance of a surgical procedure on his nose. Plaintiff alleges he only consented to laser surgery to shrink his nasal mucous membranes and a partial removal of the tip of his uvula. Plaintiff instead underwent extensive surgical procedures beyond the laser surgery and partial removal of his uvula. Plaintiff alleges that he did not consent to procedures to remove his nasal turbinate and the procedure to totally remove his uvula and soft palate.
    • Plaintiffs are the surviving heirs of decedent who was presented to Defendant for treatment with symptoms of abdominal pain, GI bleed, hematemesis and deep vein thrombosis. Decedent was admitted to the hospital. Defendants allegedly failed to investigate the cause of decedent’s gastrointestinal bleed and continuing drop in hemoglobin levels through diagnostic testing, including, but not limited to, a CT scan. Due to their joint failure to diagnose the cause, decedent’s underlying condition was not treated. As a result, decedent died secondary to cardiac arrest and deep vein thrombosis.
    • Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant hospital for treatment. During his hospitalization, a cardiac biopsy was obtained with cardiac sarcoidosis. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were negligent in failing to disclose the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis or to treat him for that condition.
    • Medical malpractice claim against the hospital for allowing the patient to walk on a misdiagnosed though rare foot condition called Charcot Foot.
    • Plaintiffs’ daughter died after undergoing anesthesia for breast implants. Plaintiffs’ daughter died of malignant hyperthermia.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided negligent post-operative care to him after an unsuccessful kidney transplant surgery.
    • Plaintiff underwent cataract surgery performed by Defendant. During the surgery, lens material broke off and was left behind in Plaintiff’s retina. To correct and remove this problem, Plaintiff underwent another surgery performed by a second Defendant.
    • Plaintiff underwent spinal surgery and because of Defendants’ malpractice, Plaintiff suffered from paralysis due to the surgery. Plaintiff is now a partial quadriplegic.
    • Plaintiff is suing on behalf of herself and the decedent who died due to complications arising from a lap band surgery performed by Defendants. Defendants are the subjects of a federal criminal investigation.
    • Plaintiff underwent a bilateral mastopexcy and bilateral breast reduction performed by Defendant Doctor at the Defendant Surgical Center. The procedure was negligently performed, and Plaintiff suffered severe scarring, grossly infected tissue and required subsequent repair surgery.

    view all


    • Dissolution of partnership resulting in a license for life for a limited use of a patent owned by the partnership.
    • Dispute by doctors over the accounting of monies generated from the operation of a jointly owned surgery center.
    • Dispute between 3 sisters over the sale of their deceased father’s property in Malibu.
    • Dissolution and accounting action between 4 brothers who owned motels.
    • Action filed by 5 of 6 siblings against their older brother who took control of their parents’ assets including 4 parcels of real property. The eldest brother claimed that according to the law of his culture, he is entitled to all the property from their parents.
    • Plaintiff and Defendants are all shareholders of a deposition service company. To coerce Plaintiff to sell his one-third interest in the company for less than its true value, Defendants refused to make shareholder distributions. By failing to make the distributions, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of funds necessary for the support of himself and his family. Plaintiff filed an action seeking dissolution of the corporation, as well as damages arising from Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty.
    • Plaintiffs and Defendants formed several corporations to enter into food-related franchise agreements. Plaintiffs and Defendants also entered into a partnership agreement to develop new franchises in Los Angeles and New Orleans. Defendants entered into a food-related franchise development agreement with a non-party to develop a restaurant in one of the areas covered by the partnership agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the noncompete provision of the agreement.

    view all


    • Work place injury causing TBI when a part of a plywood crate struck Plaintiff in the head.
    • Rear-end auto collision with complaints of neck, back and knee injuries.
    • Claim of negligence against a horse riding stable when plaintiff's horse bucked and galloped causing her to fall from the horse and sustain injury.
    • Claim of assault, battery and breach of an oral agreement to provide living expenses.
    • Bus passenger injured when the door closed on her right ankle while exiting the bus.
    • Child was injured by ingesting lead-based paint in her apartment.
    • Severe brain trauma caused by a pedestrian-vehicle accident at an intersection with no power to operate the traffic signals. The electric provider turned off the power and did not provide any controls at the intersection.
    • Trip and fall in an alley.
    • Pedestrian v. automobile accident in a parking structure. Plaintiff had several workers compensation claims before the accident and one automobile v. automobile accident after the accident at issue. Issue of apportionment.
    • Claim of unsafe commercial premises when a table fell over and struck a minor in the forehead causing a skull fracture.
    • Slip and fall on the sidewalk. Plaintiff claimed the City made a repair to the sidewalk and left the sidewalk uneven 4.5 inches from one slab to the next.
    • The City sought indemnification based on a building permit issued to a building contractor for monies paid by the City to settle wrongful death claims.
    • A limo driver was struck by a person directing traffic in a holding lot near LAX.
    • Claim of defect and the failure to warn about a blending device that “explodes.”
    • When a child with down syndrome choked on a hot dog in a movie theater, the surviving parent claimed that the obstruction could not be seen and removed in the dark movie theater.
    • Los Angeles County Sheriff vehicle lost control while responding to an emergency call, went onto the sidewalk, and killed a pedestrian.
    • Boyfriend becomes jealous that his girlfriend is out at a bar with friends and head butts her face causing severe injuries.
    • Plaintiff had an affair with Defendant. Because of the affair, Plaintiff contracted herpes.
    • Plaintiff was admitted to Defendant’s facility for continued care after being hospitalized with a urinary tract infection. Plaintiff’s daughter visited her mother at Defendant’s facility and discovered Plaintiff had a gash on her head, skin tears, bruising on her arms and two dislocated shoulders. Plaintiff was placed in the intensive care unit suffering from dehydration, severe weight loss and pressure sores.
    • Plaintiff was injured while riding a Segway vehicle he rented from Defendants.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made defamatory statements accusing her of membership in a terrorist organization and labeling her a “Kahanist swine.” Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant falsely stated on the Internet that Plaintiff made a death threat against her.
    • A minor was injured on the premises while under the supervision of Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the minor’s fingertip was severed because of it being slammed in a bathroom door.
    • Plaintiff alleges that she has been injured by falling debris from trees. She contends that she tripped over the debris.
    • Plaintiff alleges that the County created and maintained unsafe conditions in the Marina Del Rey Oxford Basin, such that mosquitoes could breed and thrive. Further, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to abate the mosquitoes. As a result, Plaintiff was bitten by mosquitoes in that area and contracted West Nile Virus.
    • Plaintiff is a well-known actor who has appeared in many television shows and movies. Plaintiff is a co-founder of a temple that offers non-denominational spiritual programming. Defendants published an article online that the Plaintiff was “busted for peddling illegal kombucha.” The facts established that (1) Plaintiff was not busted for selling illegal kombucha; and (2) Plaintiff was not on the premises of the temple when the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control conducted the raid. Plaintiff claims that because of this false publication, he lost potential acting jobs. Plaintiff filed a defamation action.
    • Plaintiff was operating his car when Defendant’s car crossed over a median into opposing traffic and hit Plaintiff’s car head-on. Defendant One was driving while intoxicated and was charged at the scene with a DUI, driving while operating a cell phone without a hands-free set, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of the highway. Defendant One was convicted of a felony. Defendant Two was the owner of the vehicle that struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. Further, Defendant Three was named in the action for serving alcohol to Defendant One despite his knowledge that Defendant One was not of legal age to consume alcohol and that he was going to operate a car.
    • Plaintiff was employed under a written agreement to serve as the CEO of a community center. Thereafter, the board of directors for the community center terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims the action of the board was invalid because it was taken in violation of the by-laws for the community center. Plaintiff also contends he was terminated because he filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department of Developmental Services requesting an investigation of fiscal improprieties on the part of the center. Also, Plaintiff contends that Defendant defamed him when board members and volunteers made false and defamatory statements, including a document entitled “Save the Community Center,” which contained numerous allegedly false statements.
    • Plaintiff was attacked by a fellow patron at Defendant’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleges that the patron attacked him with such force he was hurled into a plate glass window and suffered severe injury. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s security personnel were fully aware of the situation and did nothing to prevent or stop the attack.
    • Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging she suffered personal injuries from a fall on the stairs at a business establishment on Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Malibu.
    • Plaintiff tripped and fell into an open manhole in Hollywood. Plaintiff claims severe injuries.
    • Plaintiff received a massage at Defendant’s spa. Plaintiff alleges that the masseuse sexually abused her. Plaintiff alleges that the spa was fully aware of the masseuse’s history or propensity for sexual abuse of clients but continued to employ him and failed to warn clients of this danger.
    • Plaintiff was sweeping a roof at the commercial construction site. He was using an aluminum broom that contacted an overhead high voltage electrical power line. As a result, Plaintiff was electrocuted, and a massive explosion occurred; he was seriously injured. An action was brought against the general contractor, the power company who maintained the power line and the owner of the building.
    • Plaintiff’s minor children suffered health problems due to mold in the apartment she rented from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the entire building suffers from leaks and mold contamination, that Defendant knew of these issues and failed to inform her of them when she leased the unit.
    • Plaintiff was employed as a plasterer with Defendants who erected a scaffolding to allow workers to access higher levels to perform their duties. Plaintiff was injured when he tripped or slipped off the scaffolding and fell several feet. Plaintiff alleges the scaffolding was negligently erected and Defendants failed to provide the necessary safety restraints for use.
    • Plaintiffs were tenants on the Defendants’ property. Plaintiffs were injured when the dilapidated and defectively installed ceilings and walls on the premises collapsed.
    • A Muslim consumer bought a product at the grocery market labeled as “all beef” when in fact the product was baked in bacon to add moisture.
    • Suit filed by a University student against the school after she was stabbed by another student who was a patient at the school’s health center for psychiatric issues.
    • Suit filed by a roofer against the owner of the property after he fell from the roof.
    • Plaintiff tripped on a curb that was covered by a yellow strip of truncated domes. The curb bordered an area of the Defendant’s parking lot where there was vehicular traffic.
    • Caregiver brought a claim against the husband of an elderly patient suffering from dementia when the wife became agitated and stabbed the caregiver.
    • Personal injury claim brought by a shopper who tripped over a wheel-stop that had moved from its original position on the garage floor. Plaintiff fell over onto her head.
    • Plaintiff was a window washer hired by Defendants to wash the windows of Defendants’ residence. Defendants’ residence had a skylight. Plaintiff attempted to access the skylight by walking on a narrow catwalk but fell from the roof and was severely injured. Plaintiff is now a quadriplegic.
    • Plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk in Beverly Hills.
    • Plaintiff cut her thumb on a glass cup while she was a patron at Defendant’s salon. Plaintiff filed an action against the salon and the manufacturer of the glass.
    • Plaintiff was lawfully on the premises owned, managed and operated by Defendant One, a drug rehabilitation center. Plaintiff was attacked and beaten by Defendant Two who was a resident there. Plaintiff suffered permanent brain injury due to the assault and battery. The rehabilitation center allegedly knew of Defendant Two’s dangerous propensities but did nothing to prevent or intervene in the beating.
    • Plaintiff is a lawyer who was injured when he attempted to serve papers on another attorney who pushed Plaintiff to the ground.
    • Personal injury claim based on Strict Liability and Negligence due to the failure of a wheelchair lift which abruptly stopped and threw Plaintiff from the lift. Plaintiff landed on the staircase, face-down with a 300-pound wheelchair on her back.
    • Plaintiff was employed at a university. She made a claim for personal injury when she pulled down a roll-down door which struck her in the head.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an auto accident on the Pacific Coast Highway. Defendant was allegedly speeding downhill in a large truck towing a heavy trailer. Defendant attempted to brake when traffic slowed, as a result, the trailer began to fishtail, forcing the truck and the trailer into opposing traffic. Defendant collided with Plaintiff who was heading uphill on the same portion of the highway. Plaintiff claims Defendant knew the trailer had no functioning brakes, which caused the trailer to fishtail.
    • Personal injury claim against a taxicab for quickly leaving a parking space into on-coming traffic causing a motorcycle to collide with the rear of the cab.
    • Personal injury claim by a motorcycle rider against the operator of a vehicle who changed lanes on the freeway and struck the motorcycle.
    • Plaintiff was a patient at Defendant One, a recovery center, where she received rehabilitation and psychiatric care. Plaintiff alleges that while in the care of Defendant One, she was sexually assaulted and exploited by Defendant Two, an employee. Plaintiff asserts she was under heavy medication and psychologically vulnerable when Defendant Two imposed a sexual relationship on her.
    • Plaintiff was arrested by sheriff deputies for allegedly attempting to pass a bad check at a bank. Plaintiff was incarcerated four days on the charge and was only released after posting bail. Plaintiff argues she never attempted to pass a bad check and instead went to the bank to ask if a check she received from a potential employer was a valid check. Plaintiff alleges the District Attorney’s office rejected the case. Plaintiff claims the arrest was without basis and filed a civil claim for damages.
    • Pedestrian jaywalked and was struck in the back of his leg by a car causing a fracture of his heel.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant were opposing counsel in a case. While the court was in recess during jury trial, Plaintiff allegedly made a veiled death threat against Defendant. Plaintiff allegedly told his co-counsel that he knew persons who killed people. Defendant overheard these statements and interpreted them to be a death threat. When court was again in session, Defendant informed the judge of what had happened, and the court suggested that Defendant file a police report if she genuinely believed Plaintiff’s statements were a threat against her person. Defendant reported the statements to the police that day. After the police investigated the case, they forwarded the case to the District Attorney. No action was filed. Plaintiff filed this action on the basis that a false police report was filed by Defendant.
    • Plaintiff is an elderly woman who resided at a senior home owned by Defendants. Plaintiff slipped and fell while attempting to get out of her bathtub. The bathtub was not fitted with safety railings.
    • The Plaintiff sustained injuries when she tripped and fell over tables and chairs set up on a public walkway next to a restaurant.
    • Plaintiffs are residential tenants at a property owned by Defendant One. Plaintiffs were assaulted and stabbed in their unit by Defendant Two a tenant in the building. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant One was fully aware of multiple attacks and assaults by Defendant Two but failed to take reasonable safety steps to address this threat.
    • Rogue driver enters the Venice Boardwalk and kills two tourists whose estates claim the City of Los Angeles was at fault.
    • Cement truck on the downhill of a winding road in Beverly Hills loses its brakes, collides with a parked police car killing one of the occupants. The claim was filed against the City of Beverly Hills, the truck driver and the owner of the cement truck.
    • Joy-ride by two teenagers leaving their high school at noon leading to the death of the passenger.
    • Plaintiff slipped and fell in the common area of her apartment complex. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell due to the presence of wet and decomposing leaves, a cracked or uplifted concrete slap and insufficient lighting. Plaintiff alleges the common area was in a state of disrepair due to Defendants’ negligence and that Defendants had a duty to barricade or warn of the dangerous condition.
    • Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries due to a motorcycle accident with an automobile. Plaintiff was heading eastbound on Montana Avenue in the City of Santa Monica on his motorcycle when Defendant turned left and struck Plaintiff. An action was filed against the City of Santa Monica, a utility company and a construction company. At the time of the accident, the construction company was performing excavation work that required the eastbound lane on Montana Avenue to be dug up and barricaded. The construction company was hired by the utility company. The construction site was subject to a traffic control plan developed by the City of Santa Monica. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were negligent in maintaining the construction site, such that drivers could not negotiate a left turn safely onto Montana Avenue and there were no signs prohibiting such left turns.
    • Plaintiff was a patron at a popular nightclub on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. During a pre-Video Music Award party hosted by a rap artist, a shooting occurred and Plaintiff was injured because of the ensuing chaos. Plaintiff fell on broken glass as she attempted to flee.
    • Personal injury claim arising when Plaintiff rode his bike along a residential street with the right-of-way and Defendant drove his vehicle and failed to stop for a stop sign.
    • Plaintiff was a resident of Defendant, a substance abuse rehabilitation facility. Plaintiff overdosed on heroin. Plaintiff used a cell phone to contact a drug dealer to obtain the drugs and syringes; the transaction was made through the window of his room. Plaintiff alleges his overdose was the result of Defendant’s negligence. Defendant’s policies required that all cell phones be removed from the premises and that all rooms and residents shall be checked for contraband. Defendant failed to enforce those policies. Further, Plaintiff contends that Defendant also knew or should have known of Plaintiff’s imminent drug relapse.
    • Plaintiff is a student at Defendant’s elementary school. Plaintiff was injured while using an X-Acto knife during an art class overseen by a teacher at the school. Plaintiff cut tendons in his hand.
    • Plaintiff wearing dark clothes, late at night, on a dark industrial street, brought a personal injury claim when she was struck by a car exiting a parking lot while she was riding her bike on the sidewalk which crosses over the driveway from that parking lot to the street.
    • Discrimination lawsuit against a night club and the security company working at the club for alleged harassment based upon sexual orientation.
    • Claim for personal injuries from the use of a blending device which exploded when used to mix hot soup.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made slanderous statements about him to the police and to their neighbors. Defendant allegedly filed a police report stating that Plaintiff attempted to hit her with his vehicle. Defendant also allegedly told neighbors that Plaintiff attempted to run her over with his car, that Plaintiff poisoned Defendant’s dog and killed it, and that Plaintiff was using his property to film pornographic videos.
    • Plaintiffs were each sexually assaulted by Defendant, an NFL player.
    • Plaintiff was employed by Defendant One as its CFO and bookkeeper. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Two was using Defendant One’s funds for her own personal purposes. In an attempt to conceal her misuse of those funds, Defendant Two attempted to shift blame and focus from her to Plaintiff. Defendant One terminated Plaintiff’s employment on grounds that he was allegedly taking money from Defendant One without the knowledge or permission of the Defendant One’s Board of Directors. Plaintiff claims disparagement when the facts of his firing were made public.
    • Claim for personal injuries sustained in an off-sight parking lot accident against the event planner holding a gala event at a well-known mansion in Los Angeles. The off-sight location was used due to the high volume of attendees at the event.
    • Plaintiffs allege they are the surviving siblings of the decedent who died in the Defendant hospital. She had been admitted for treatment in connection with her diabetes. Plaintiffs allege that they were not notified of decedent’s death and in fact were told by the Hospital several times that decedent had never been there. After Plaintiffs filed a missing person’s report, they learned of decedent’s death and that her remains had been transported to a mortuary where she was cremated.
    • Plaintiffs were injured when they lost control of their vehicle on the freeway and collided with a cement barrier. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had negligently repaired their vehicle such that it went out of control causing Plaintiffs to collide into the barrier.
    • Plaintiffs are the surviving wife and children of decedent who committed suicide while under the care of Defendant. On the day of his suicide, decedent informed Defendant that he intended to commit suicide. After failing to find an inpatient facility that could accommodate him, Defendant released the decedent on his own recognizance and he committed suicide that day.
    • Personal injury claim arising out of a homeowner’s fall from a step ladder.
    • Plaintiff is the mother of decedent who was a passenger in the car of Defendant who was operating the car while under the influence of alcohol.
    • Plaintiff and his minor child were severely burned after the child grabbed a cup full of hot coffee off the counter while Plaintiff was holding her. The lid of the cup came off suddenly even though Plaintiff had secured the lid before the child grabbed it. Plaintiff filed this action against the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of the cup.
    • Plaintiffs are the brothers of decedent who was a pedestrian killed in an accident involving Defendant. Defendant was operating his vehicle on the way to his job at a sanitation plant owned and operated by the City. Defendant was required to have a driver’s license as part of his job and that is the basis under which Plaintiff alleges that the City was liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
    • NBA basketball player sexually assaults a woman in the restroom of a bar.
    • Claimant suffered several broken bones because Defendant’s golf cart fell on him.
    • Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle over a defect in the roadway that caused him to be ejected from his motorcycle. He flew, landed on his backside, and slid into an adjacent abutment. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital for extensive injuries.
    • Plaintiffs’ mother was killed in a car accident. A nonparty pulled into an intersection to make a left turn when Defendant drove his car into the intersection and hit the nonparty’s car. As a result, the nonparty lost control of her vehicle and struck Plaintiff’s mother, who was a pedestrian waiting at the curb.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently painted her apartment with oil- based paint. As a result, she was exposed to toxic paint fumes.
    • The tip of Plaintiff’s finger was severed when she attempted to use the restroom at one of Defendant’s stores. Plaintiff alleges Defendant negligently maintained or installed the bathroom door so that it slammed on her finger when she tried to enter the restroom.
    • Plaintiff was injured as a passenger on a three-wheel vehicle, driven by Defendant One who rented it for a test drive from Defendant Two. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant One was negligent in operating the vehicle, Defendant Two was negligent in renting the vehicle to Defendant One and Defendant Three was negligent in maintaining the vehicle.
    • Plaintiff was in an automobile accident with Defendant One who was insured by Defendant Two. Defendant Three is an employee of Defendant Two. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly pay her claim despite admitting liability. Plaintiff also claims Defendants committed a hate crime or concealed a hate crime against her.
    • Plaintiff tripped and fell on a displaced portion of the sidewalk next to a tree in Santa Monica.
    • Plaintiff was injured on the premises of a middle school while performing work as an electrician for his employer, an electrical company. Plaintiff alleges he tripped and fell over debris left on the premises by Defendants.
    • Plaintiffs were victims of Defendants’ alleged criminal conspiracy, which involved the use of a corporate entity as a front to locate vulnerable young women suffering from drug addiction, like Plaintiffs, for sexually exploiting them. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used a modus operandi, involving falsely advertising that he was operating a legitimate drug rehabilitation facility, luring the women to the facility or hotels and then sexually exploiting them after giving them drugs and alcohol.
    • Plaintiff was held at a hospital on a 5150 psychiatric hold after presenting to the emergency room. Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually assaulted while heavily sedated by Defendant, a registered vocational nurse at the facility.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, an NBA player raped her. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had made sexual overtures on several occasions prior to the rape and she rebuffed them. Plaintiff claims Defendant purchased several drinks for her and after consuming them, she has no recollection of the evening.
    • Plaintiff is a minor and a special needs student. The child was missing when her mother went to pick her up; Plaintiff was not being properly supervised by Defendants. Because of the lack of supervision, she wandered off campus to a store. Defendants refused to contact police to locate her.
    • Plaintiff was injured while attempting to perform plumbing work on Defendant’s home. Defendant hired Plaintiff’s company to change shower valves and place gas pipelines to a second-floor shower in Defendant’s home. Defendant instructed Plaintiff to avoid damaging the tile in the second-story shower. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to access the shower from the exterior of the house and scaffolding was required to reach the second story. Defendant rented the scaffolding but it was not high enough to reach the work area. To reach it, Plaintiff placed a ladder on top of the scaffolding and fell while climbing the ladder. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries.
    • Plaintiff was a patron at a beach-front restaurant owned by Defendant. After patronizing the restaurant, Plaintiff went to the beach for a swim. He was severely injured when he was thrown by the force of the waves to the shore. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to place any signs warning of strong undercurrents.
    • Plaintiffs are the surviving husband and children of decedent who was admitted as a patient to Defendant Medical Center to obtain treatment related to her leukemia. During her stay, the decedent was served food infected with bacillus bacteria. She died because of the infected food.
    • Plaintiff hired Defendant to install a large overhead cabinet in her dental office. While Plaintiff was treating a dental patient, the overhead cabinet separated from the office wall and fell on top of Plaintiff causing her serious injuries.
    • Plaintiff is a minor who was injured when she was at the residence of Defendant One and being supervised by Defendant Two, a nanny. The daughter of Defendant One struck Plaintiff in the eye while they were playing. Plaintiff suffers from permanent vision loss.
    • Plaintiff alleges that during her employment with Defendant, he made sexually offensive comments to her, watched her change in her dressing room and prevented her from exiting her dressing room.
    • Decedent injured himself on a cruise to South America. Plaintiff, his surviving wife, alleges that decedent received negligent medical treatment from the ship’s doctor, which led to his injury worsening and his death.
    • Plaintiffs’ son was shot in Tapia Park by a Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy. Plaintiffs allege the shooting was uncalled for and in violation of decedent’s rights.
    • Plaintiff tripped and fell over the stub of a metal pole while going to her car in a parking lot owned, managed and operated by Defendants.
    • Plaintiff tripped and fell on the Santa Monica Pier. Plaintiff alleges that she tripped over a protruding nail.
    • Plaintiff filed a complaint for negligence, premises liability, and product liability due to injuries she sustained while escaping from a fire that was caused by her Apple laptop computer.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant hit him with his truck while he was riding his bike.
    • Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle was struck by Defendant’s forklift when it fell off a truck.
    • Plaintiff was injured while a passenger on Defendant’s bus. Plaintiff alleges that the driver was negligent when he suddenly stopped the bus, throwing Plaintiff forward and back and causing her injury.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant are residents in the Pacific Palisades. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant assaulted her and kicked her dog in the neighborhood’s park. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant attempted to individually enforce the CC&Rs of the neighborhood concerning dogs off leash through improper means, such as threats, coercion and force.
    • Plaintiffs enrolled their daughters in a private school for girls. Child 1 purportedly disrespected her calculus teacher. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants subjected Child 1 to severe emotional trauma when they insisted that Child 1 appear before a peer review board for her behavior. Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew both children from the school and filed a lawsuit.
    • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conducted a smear campaign that ultimately destroyed his legal practice in the UK. Plaintiff claims Defendants used illegal means to obtain confidential information about him and disseminated lies about his legal credentials. Plaintiff alleges Defendants intention was to cripple his ability to bring discrimination lawsuits on behalf of minority police officers at Scotland Yard.
    • Decedent fell while he was in Defendants' care. Decedent suffered from multiple health issues but was admitted to Defendants' facility due to his Alzheimer’s disease. Decedent was admitted directly to Defendants' facility after being on a 5150 hold. Decedent fell within minutes of being admitted to the facility and suffered a hip injury.
    • Plaintiff was hired pursuant to a written contract with Defendant to sing at Defendant's restaurant for one year on Thursdays through Saturdays. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered personal injury after he was exposed to excessive amounts of smoke during a performance. Plaintiff alleges the restaurant was improperly ventilated in violation of applicable health codes.

    view all


    • Partnership dispute over contributions to the purchase and remodeling of an investment house.
    • Claim by tenant of asbestos contamination by landlord when he removed an old furnace and ducting.
    • Dispute between members of a co-operative concerning repairs to the units and the governance of the complex.
    • Claim for penalty arising from the rental of an illegal unit.
    • Residents in a mobile home park contend that they should not be responsible for Los Angeles City mandated recycle costs.
    • The brother of an owner of two parcels of real property forged deeds and payment demands to remove encumbrances from the real property co-owned by his sister. Thereafter, he borrowed funds secured by the property and absconded with the proceeds.
    • Tenant claims inhabitable premises. Owner claims non-disclosure against the prior owner and the brokers, and claims indemnity by one broker against his client.
    • Claim of misrepresentation and concealment regarding the purchase of real estate.
    • Claim for implied easement plus damages.
    • Claim of trespass to easement and a counter-claim of adverse possession.
    • Claim for interference with prospective economic advantage regarding the sale of real property when a real estate agent diverted the sale of real property to himself.
    • Claim of encroachment made by the owner of an adjoining parcel of real property. The parties agreed to obtain a survey and then fix the encroachments within 90 days. However, if the encroachments were not fully remedied, then the matter would proceed to trial on the issue of damages.
    • Claim for water intrusion causing personal injury and property damage sustained by a condo owner against the unit above him.
    • Claim that the seller failed to disclose that one of his tenants felt vibrations in the apartment.
    • Claim of soil movement caused by the excavation of a neighbor’s property.
    • Claim of violation of an easement agreement and property damage caused by excavation on a neighbor’s property.
    • Defendants (Sellers) sought cancellation of a real estate purchase agreement on the basis that one owner did not sign the contract and that Plaintiff (Buyer) failed to remove the contingencies as provided in the Amended Escrow Instructions.
    • Claim for misrepresentation and failing to disclose damages caused by landslides to Plaintiff, a buyer of a single-family home.
    • Seller concealed from his buyer that he owned the property next door and secured a demolition permit to build on that lot.
    • Claim that Sellers failed to disclose drainage, leaks, mold, and water intrusion issues regarding the subject property.
    • Plaintiffs’ home was land-locked. They sought an easement by necessity.
    • Claim for specific performance. Seller claimed her broker exceeded her authority. Plaintiffs accepted damages in settlement.
    • Claim of commission owed under the terms of a Buyer’s Representation Agreement.
    • Homeowners blocked the development of single-family homes on a hillside area of the local municipality. The area was claimed to be the natural habitat of big-horn sheep. The matter resolved when the protestors and the city agreed to use their efforts to secure state funding along with private funds to purchase the property.
    • Seven lawsuits were pending between the parties regarding liens in favor of a bank recorded against units in a co-operative. There were procedural challenges to the legitimacy of the liens.
    • As a result of a mistake in the legal description of a trust deed, a lien was removed from title. The junior lienholder and the title company settled the claim with the beneficiary.
    • Claim for quiet title and mismanagement of commercial real estate.
    • Children of a deceased member of a family-owned real estate business sought to dissolve the holdings of the company per the Operating Agreement.
    • Suit between a homeowner and her landscape architect concerning the payment of excessive deposits on work that was not performed.
    • Neighbor dispute over trees roots.
    • Suit for the collection of a Note secured by real property.
    • Homeowner sought a stay on foreclosure action due to alleged predatory lending practices.
    • Claim of easement in Malibu by a land-locked property owner for a roadway to the main road.
    • Plaintiff loaned Defendant money to purchase a home. The loan was evidenced by a written agreement and a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. Plaintiff’s company employed Defendant and loaned money to Defendant so she could purchase a home closer to the office. Plaintiff loaned the funds for purchase of a specific home that Defendant showed Plaintiff prior to the purchase. Pursuant to the terms of the deed of trust, Defendant was not permitted to lease the property without the consent or knowledge of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made misrepresentations to Plaintiff and breached the terms of the Note and Deed of Trust when she (1) used the funds to purchase a house different from the one Defendant showed Plaintiff; (2) pocketed the difference between the actual house purchased and the more expensive house upon which the loan was based; (3) placed title to the house in the name of Defendant’s family trust, not Defendant’s own individual name; and (4) after purchasing the house, she leased the house to tenants without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.
    • Claim for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by the purchaser of a home in Malibu advertised by a dual broker as being 15,000 square feet when in fact the home was 11,000 to 12,000 square feet.
    • Claim of seller misrepresentation regarding the condition of the various systems of a single-family residence.
    • Claim for judicial foreclosure on loans totaling $100 million secured by trust deeds against the subject property.
    • Real estate company claims accountant malpractice when the IRS assessed millions of dollars of under-reported income.
    • Plaintiff is the owner of a single-family home. Plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust with Defendants as beneficiaries. The Trust Deed secured a $500,000 promissory note. Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendants executed a modification of the note to add $400,000 to the principal balance, making the total principal balance on the Note $900,000. The modification did not modify the Trust Deed to include the additional $400,000. Plaintiff alleges that a Notice of Default was improperly recorded. Plaintiff contends there was no default and the Notice of Default improperly included the $400,000 modification. Defendants also failed to provide an itemization of the default and outstanding balance, despite Plaintiff’s request for one. Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that Defendants initiated a improper foreclosure.
    • Petitioner seeks an order releasing a mechanic’s lien from her property. Respondent is a general contractor. Respondent’s claim of lien was recorded but he failed to foreclose on it within 90 days. Petitioner asks that the Court order the lien released under CC Section 8460.
    • Petitioner seeks to deposit surplus funds with the Court generated by a trustee’s sale of property. The amount to be deposited is $200,000. Petitioner is the trustee and determined there are conflicting claims to the proceeds.
    • Plaintiff invested in five properties with Defendant. Plaintiff contributed capital to the development and purchase of the properties. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant stole money from the holding companies through improper checks and loans. Plaintiff claims Defendant stole over $8 million. When caught, Defendant promised to repay the stolen money but failed to do so. Plaintiff alleges breach of the operating agreements of the holding companies and breach of the fiduciary duty owed by Defendant to Plaintiff.
    • Plaintiff resides in a single-family home. He executed a deed of trust. Defendant One is the loan servicer. Defendant Two is the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. Defendant Three is the trustee. Plaintiff defaulted on the underlying loan and a Notice of Default was recorded. Plaintiff applied for a loan modification and was denied on grounds of insufficient income. Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a renewed loan modification based on changed financial circumstances at the recommendation of Defendant One. Plaintiff’s wife was now contributing to more than 50% of the household income. With the knowledge that the renewed loan modification application was pending and complete, Defendants did not cease the foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff filed an action to enjoin the sale.
    • Plaintiff is the owner of a condominium unit. She obtained a reverse mortgage from Defendant. At the time, she was 67 years old and disabled with $50,000 in equity in the home. Plaintiff alleges that because of Defendant’s pressure and deceptive practices, Plaintiff obtained a reverse mortgage that robbed her of her equity and her home.
    • Plaintiff owns property in Bel Aire and Defendants are neighboring landowners. Plaintiff’s property is located above Defendants’ property. Plaintiff’s property has sweeping views of Century City, Westwood and downtown Los Angeles throughout the home. Plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale contract with a non-party for $3 million. Escrow opened on the property. The same day Defendants informed Plaintiff that they intended to build a second story to their property and that their intent to do so would interfere and affect the views from Plaintiff’s property. Defendants told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was required to inform the purchaser of their intent to build up their property, because it would affect the views from Plaintiff’s property; Plaintiff made the disclosure and the buyer canceled the agreement. Thereafter, Defendants’ friend made a lower offer for the property in the amount of $2.2 million. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants never intended to build up their property but told Plaintiff that they were going to do so to interfere with Plaintiff’s sale agreement. Plaintiff filed an action for damages.
    • Plaintiff is the owner of residential property located in Brentwood. Defendants are the owners of the adjacent lot. Defendants’ predecessor-in-interest granted to Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest an easement over a portion of their private driveway. Pursuant to a 1959 Agreement, the easement was amended slightly in size and provided that both parties agreed to execute any additional documents necessary to perfect title to the easement. When Plaintiff purchased their lot and began the remodeling of the single-family home, they submitted plans to the City for approval. The City indicated the plans could not be approved unless Plaintiff submitted a Covenant and Agreement for Community Driveway executed by Plaintiff and Defendant. The proposed driveway would traverse a portion of Defendants’ property that was already included in the easement created in the original easement and the easement created by the 1959 Agreement. Defendants refused to execute the Covenant and attempted to negotiate, demanding new consideration for the Covenant. Plaintiff asserted the 1959 Agreement and the original easement required Defendants to execute the Covenant to preserve the easement, such that no new consideration was required.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant are adjoining landowners. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has erected a fence that unreasonably obstructs Plaintiff’s view of the ocean from her property. Defendant has also planted oak saplings that will mature and block the view as well. Plaintiff filed an action based on the CC&Rs applicable to the properties.
    • Plaintiffs and Defendant are neighbors. Defendant allegedly cut or trimmed Plaintiffs’ trees down without permission.
    • Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ properties are separated by an alley. Defendants’ properties house two commercial businesses, a shipping company and private practice psychotherapy offices. Defendants have monopolized the alley between the properties, using the alley for overflow parking, a basketball court, group meetings, food trucks, a smoking section and an automotive workspace. When Plaintiffs complained to the police, Defendants retaliated, and Plaintiffs suffered property damage and noise disturbances because of Defendants’ activities. Plaintiffs filed an action to enjoin the nuisance created by Defendants’ activities in the alley.
    • • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants trespassed on his property in the Pacific Palisades and dumped 1500 cubic yards of dirt and materials excavated and/or removed from a construction project in Santa Monica. Defendants allegedly cut open a locked gate to access Plaintiff’s property without his permission and deposited the dirt.
    • Plaintiff is the son-in-law of decedents, who are the parents of his ex-wife. Plaintiff alleges that during their lifetime, he performed maintenance services on their rental property and they promised the apartment building would be Plaintiff’s after they died.
    • Plaintiff purchased certain residential property from Defendant. Defendant was obligated to fully transfer possession of the property within 30 days of the close of escrow. Defendant failed to do so, and as a result, Plaintiff was left to obtain full possession by relocating the tenant on the property at its own expense. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement and damages in the amount of $150,000 for removal of the tenant and acquisition of full possession of the property.
    • Plaintiff leased commercial premises from Defendant based on representations that the premises were code-compliant and safe for commercial use. Plaintiff discovered after executing the lease that the building was not code-compliant and was in fact dangerous for use. Plaintiff was forced to spend $50,000 in tenant improvements but the property was still unsuitable for use. Plaintiff filed an action for rescission of the lease and damages arising from the misrepresentations.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant are joint owners of real property located in Beverly Hills. Parties entered into an agreement for the joint ownership and operation of the property, with Plaintiff holding a 78% interest and Defendant holding a 22% interest. Plaintiff claims Defendant has breached his fiduciary duty by failing to disclose substantial judgment liens against him, failing to pay for his share of the monthly loan against the property and refusing to sign a legitimate, good-faith, arms-length offer to sell the property. Plaintiff seeks to partition the property.
    • Plaintiff purchased two lots from Defendant One. The grant deeds purportedly conveyed easements over properties owned by Defendant Two. Plaintiff filed an action alleging fraud, breach of contract, and related claims against Defendants.
    • Parties are neighboring landowners in Malibu. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is maintaining a “spite fence” consisting of a row of trees exceeding 10 feet in height. Plaintiffs allege that the fence blocks their ocean view.
    • Plaintiffs hired Defendants who are landscapers to perform a “Home Improvement” construction contract involving Plaintiffs home in Malibu. Defendants failed to complete the project in the time agreed.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant are mother and daughter. They each own one-half of two properties located in Venice. The parties agreed to transfer their respective 50% interests in each property to each other, so that Plaintiff would own all of one property and Defendant would own the other. Plaintiff executed the deed and made the transfer of the property going to Defendant. However, Defendant refuses to transfer her 50% interest in the other property. Plaintiffs filed this action to cancel the quitclaim deed she executed.
    • Plaintiff is a homeowner who hired Defendant to remodel his home. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant performed the work improperly and hired unlicensed subcontractors.
    • Plaintiff and Defendant are neighboring business owners in a business plaza. They share a common wall. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remodeling construction physically damaged Plaintiff’s premises and caused severe noise disruption, which is particularly damaging because Plaintiff runs a day spa.
    • Defendant owns real property and has begun development and construction at the property. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s construction plans violate the CC&Rs that run with the property and apply to all lots located in the tract. Plaintiff alleges the plans violate the CC&Rs as to the following: (1) requirement that all construction plans be approved by the architectural committee; (2) there is a prohibition against any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” and any activity that “may be or become a nuisance to the neighborhood”; and (3) there is a requirement that lot owners “take adequate provision for proper drainage.”
    • Declaratory relief action to determine if homeowners can build a two-story home in violation of the CC&Rs when two other homes in the tract have violated the restrictions on height.
    • Plaintiffs allege that Defendant took advantage of their advanced age and mental and physical conditions when he forced them to retain him as their real estate agent and broker in the sale of their home. Plaintiffs allege Defendant listed their home at below market value and attempted to sell it to undesirable buyers.

    view all


    “Judge Rosenberg has always been one of the more thorough, thoughtful, and innovative mediators I have worked with. His pre-mediation workup is second-to-none, and he is willing to go an extra mile beyond the session to assure that all parties are heard during the process.”

    “Judge Rosenberg was amazing to work with. I have mediated thousands of cases and he was amazing.”

    “Judge Rosenberg was a pleasure-well prepared; balanced demeanor; very knowledgeable; very effective communicator and neutral.”

    “Judge Rosenberg is one of the best neutrals I have ever used. He settled 3/3 complicated cases in one day. He spends time doing the work to be prepared, he asks important questions when necessary, and he allows both the Plaintiff and the Defendant to feel heard. He provides insight that is essential in getting some of these complicated cases to resolve and he handles all follow-ups and makes himself available, which is so appreciated.”

    “Judge Rosenberg and his team are excellent, and I have heard from my client, adjuster, and opposing counsel how happy they are with the services provided! Thanks to the whole team for a great mediation day!”

    “Judge Rosenberg is a great mediator and we feel lucky that he agreed to mediate Postmates’ mediation day! We had a great experience. Judge Rosenberg and his team are the best, and I have heard from my client, adjuster, and opposing counsel how happy they are with the services provided! Thanks to the whole team for a great mediation day!”

    “Judge Rosenberg was incredibly effective. The client was thrilled! I am so impressed with Judge Rosenberg and Chelsea. They are an incredible team and my client/carrier are thrilled!”

    “Judge Rosenberg was excellent; he came recommended to me, and I will highly recommend him to others.”

    “Judge Rosenberg was terrific.”

    “Super impressive with Judge Rosenberg! Would definitely use him again and recommend him to others.”

    Judge Rosenberg’s calm, personable, and seasoned demeanor was just what we needed.

    “If only there was an option for more than 5 stars! Judge Rosenberg was excellent! He was very knowledgeable, well prepared and professional. He was able to use a number of different strategies to keep the parties talking and to lessen the divide between two very divergent valuations of the case. He did a phenomenal job resolving a difficult and contentious matter when both sides had come to believe that mediation would be futile. I would highly recommend Judge Rosenberg for any future mediation or neutral services!”

    It is always an absolute pleasure dealing with your company. Your staff is always, friendly, helpful and professional. Judge Rosenberg is absolutely excellent as are any other of the neutrals I have used through your company. I prefer your company over any other dispute resolution service that is available.”

    The Honorable Gerald Rosenberg has been, and continues to be, nothing short of an absolute pleasure to work with. His professionalism and skills as a mediator are rivaled by few, equaled by none, and command respect without ever demanding it of either party. We look forward to working with him again in the near future and would like to thank ADR Services, Inc. for making our prior encounters with Judge Rosenberg possible.”

    I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Judge Rosenberg for his help in settling this recent lawsuit. It was a complex and contentious legal dispute. He was able to quickly understand the complex issues involved in thecase, and was able to create a safe and productive environment for me and my client to discuss our differences with the opposing counsel. With Judge Rosenberg’s help, we were able to reach a settlement that was fair, reasonable, and took the parties’ unique circumstances into consideration. I would highly recommend Judge Rosenberg for mediation.”