What We Do

Clients and colleagues rely on the firm’s appellate team to successfully develop a case long before an appeal is filed.  The team collaborates on dispositive and other significant pre-trial motions and is instrumental during the post-trial phase when issues are teed up for appeal.

City of Inglewood
Won a victory in the California Court of Appeal, holding that an elected public official in the City of Inglewood could not state a claim under Labor Code section 1102.5 for retaliation based on whistleblowing because elected officials are not “employees” under the Labor Code. The Court of Appeal held that the anti-SLAPP motion filed by City Councilmembers seeking to strike the official’s claims should have been granted in its entirety.

County of Los Angeles
Represented the County of Los Angeles in claims brought by former LASD Deputy Andrew Rodriguez after he failed to return to work following medical leave and failed to disclose his employment with Disneyland while out on leave.  An IAB investigation found that Rodriguez had made untruthful certifications regarding his leave activities.  Once he returned to LASD, he was reassigned to a civilian position.  He subsequently filed a DFEH complaint, followed by a lawsuit against the County alleging hostile work environment harassment and retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation.  The trial court dismissed on summary judgment Rodriguez’s whistleblower retaliation claims, but on October 4, 2019, a jury awarded Rodriguez $8.1 million on his FEHA claims for discrimination and retaliation.  On July 17, 2020, the court granted, in part, Rodriguez’s attorney fees motion and awarded him $214,791.88.  Miller Barondess was brought in to handle the post-trial motions and appeal.  On September 20, 2022, the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the $8.1 million jury verdict and attorney fees award and remanded the case for a full retrial.

County of Los Angeles
Obtained dismissal of an action filed by the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs against the County of Los Angeles challenging the County’s practices for recouping inadvertent overpayments through payroll deductions.  Miller Barondess succeeded in dismissing the entire lawsuit on demurrer.  In February 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued a published decision holding that dismissal was proper under the home rule doctrine.  This win resolves a long-time recurring issue that has impacted payroll administrators in departments across the County—and counties and cities statewide.  The decision will help governmental employers understand how to tackle their internal employment compensation matters. [Read more]

County of Los Angeles
Represented the County of Los Angeles in challenging Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s decision to reinstate former Deputy Sheriff Mandoyan, who was discharged after a fellow deputy alleged that Mandoyan physically assaulted her, tried to break into her home, sent her harassing text messages, and then lied about it.  The Civil Service Commission upheld Mandoyan’s termination after a full evidentiary hearing.  When Villanueva was elected in 2018, he brought Mandoyan back to the department.  We obtained an injunction overturning Villanueva’s rehiring of Mandoyan, precluding him from rejoining the department.  Our firm successfully defended a federal civil rights lawsuit that Mandoyan filed, alleging retaliation for his political support of Villanueva.  In September 2020, we obtained a judicial ruling that Villanueva’s attempt to reinstate Mandoyan was unlawful.  Mandoyan appealed the ruling, and on September 22, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the ruling and awarded the County its costs on appeal.  The ruling confirmed that the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel, not the Sheriff, control litigation involving County officers and employees. [Read more]

County of Los Angeles
Led negotiations in a historic agreement in federal court between the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles to shelter homeless people living in freeway encampments and is heading up litigation in federal district court and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding homeless issues.  In a decision recognized as a Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal “Top Appellate Reversal” 2021, the firm won a Ninth Circuit ruling vacating a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge David Carter ordering that the City and the County house skid row’s homeless population within six months and deposit $1 billion into an escrow account to ensure the funds were being used appropriately.  We persuaded the Court to vacate Judge Carter’s order because it was “largely based on unpled claims and theories.” [Read more]

San Diego Police Department
On behalf of the family and estate of Fridoon Rawshan Nehad, secured a $3 million settlement in December 2021 in a wrongful death and excessive force police shooting case against the San Diego Police Department on the eve of trial.  Fridoon was shot and killed by a San Diego police officer and the incident was captured on surveillance video.  Before the Ninth Circuit, Miller Barondess obtained a reversal of the grant of summary judgment and reinstated the lawsuit, remanding the case back to District Court for a jury trial.  The case also involved briefing before the U.S. Supreme Court which requested a brief on the qualified immunity issue.  The settlement amount is an unusually high number for San Diego. [Read more]

Byron Allen (Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc.)
Represented Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc. (ES) in two civil rights lawsuits against major cable television distribution companies Comcast and Charter Communications.  ES owns and operates television channels and has thousands of hours of program content in its library.  Plaintiffs alleged that Comcast and Charter, the two largest cable television distributors in the country, discriminated against ES, a 100% African American–owned media company, in contracting for channel carriage and refusing to carry the ES channels.  These groundbreaking cases alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.  After two separate appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the § 1981 claims could proceed against both cable companies in decisions released late last year.  In the rulings, the panel concluded that the “but-for” causation element wasn’t necessary and that plaintiff need only show racism played a role in the decision not to contract with him.  Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Comcast case was resolved with channel carriage obtained.  The Charter case settled thereafter, with channel carriage obtained. [Read more]

County of Los Angeles
Won a published decision from the California Second District Court of Appeal on behalf of the County of Los Angeles.  In an effort to combat the surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, the County of Los Angeles issued a modified order effective November 25, 2020, restricting outdoor dining services at restaurants, breweries, wineries, and bars.  The California Restaurant Association sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the County from implementing the ban.  A superior court judge enjoined the County’s order, but the County filed an immediate petition for writ of mandate.  The Second District Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay of the superior court’s injunction against the County and an order to show cause as to why the injunction should not be reversed.  On March 1, 2021, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the superior court had abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the County and directed the court to deny the California Restaurant Association’s request for a preliminary injunction.  This victory helped to ensure the protection of County residents during a raging pandemic and set an important statewide precedent granting public officials broad discretion to take preventative measures during an emergency. [Read more]

Herbalife
Represented the successor trustee for the Mark Hughes Trust, worth nearly a billion dollars.  Mr. Hughes, the founder of Herbalife, died in 2000 and left everything in a trust to his nine-year-old son.   After the initial trustees were removed by the court, our client sought appointment as a co-trustee of the Trust in accordance with Mark Hughes’s wishes.  The probate court disqualified attorneys at Miller Barondess and ruled that our client should not be appointed as the successor trustee.  Miller Barondess appealed the disqualification order, and on August 7, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the order and reinstated Miller Barondess as counsel.  The Court of Appeal also ordered that our client should be appointed as the co-trustee in accordance with the terms of the Mark Hughes Trust. [Read more]

County of Los Angeles
Obtained a victory in a published Court of Appeal decision, which held that the Brown Act does not apply to the County of Los Angeles’ process for entering into social program agreements with community organizations providing services to county residents.  The decision brings clarity to municipal agencies throughout California regarding Brown Act compliance issues and issues of delegation of authority. [Read more]

Superior Automotive Group
Reversed the trial court’s granting of a nonsuit and remanded the case for retrial on all tort claims in a lawsuit against Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation stemming from its termination of a former automobile dealer/franchisee.  In May 2017, a jury awarded $256,450,000 against Nissan.  The jury’s award included $121,900,000 in compensatory damages and $134,550,000 in punitive damages.   Recognized as one of the top plaintiff verdicts in the country. [Read more]

SunCal
Represented SunCal, one of the largest real estate developers in the U.S., in breach of contract actions in Riverside over the sale of over 600 acres near La Quinta and over 1,200 acres in Desert Hot Springs.  During the diligence period, property values jumped significantly, so the sellers reneged during escrow.  We took the cases to trial.  One case settled for $12 million during trial.  We won a $6.3 million jury verdict in the other case, which was affirmed on appeal.

Patrón Tequila
Prevailed on appeal against Patrón Tequila, wherein our client was seeking $45 million for breach of contract and fraud.  After the lower court granted summary judgment against our client, the Court of Appeal reversed, and the case proceeded to trial and settled before closing arguments. [Read more]

Representative clients include automotive lenders, automotive dealers, and automobile brands and manufacturers.

Toyota Class Action
Represents a class of 1.1 million Prius owners in a federal court putative class action against Toyota for concealing a defect in these vehicles’ engines that caused them to either shut down while driving or go into limited operation, or “limp-home” mode, where the maximum speed of the vehicle is about 15 mph.  The class contends that Toyota knew about this defect for years but failed to issue an appropriate remedy for it, instead choosing a cheaper, inadequate fix that did not prevent the dangerous failures from occurring on American roads.  Plaintiffs defeated Toyota’s motion to dismiss.  After 17 months of negotiations and mediation, the parties reached a preliminary settlement for the significant benefit of the Prius owners. [Read more]

Nissan
Obtained a 2017 Top Verdict by the Daily Journal and The National Law Journal (ranked #7 nationwide) on behalf of Superior Automotive Group and its owner against Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation.  Superior owned five Nissan and two Toyota dealerships that were financed, and ultimately shut down, by Nissan in 2008 in the midst of the Great Recession.  Nissan prevailed at the first trial, but our firm obtained a reversal in the Court of Appeal.  In May 2017, Miller Barondess obtained a $256.4 million jury award against Nissan consisting of $121.9 million in compensatory damages and $134.5 million in punitive damages. [Read more]

Hyundai
Represented the dealer of a top Hyundai dealership in Central California who was improperly shut down by Hyundai following the 2009 recession.  The firm sued Hyundai for fraud and other claims after Hyundai engaged in a calculated scheme to bleed plaintiffs’ assets and operating capital, and ultimately destroy the business.  The case was heavily litigated and resulted in a very favorable resolution for Miller Barondess’ dealer client. [Read more]

Lehman/SunCal
Our firm was litigation counsel for entities that owned 22 major real estate projects caught in the Great Recession whose work was stopped mid-project leaving over $300 million dollars of unsecured creditor claims.  Lehman initially agreed to fund, then stiffed, the unsecured creditors, consisting of vendors, contractors and surety bond providers.  We put the projects into bankruptcy in our home court, the Central District of California, away from the main Lehman bankruptcy in New York and filed suit to subordinate over $2 billion in Lehman mortgage liens.

Lehman sought to foreclose on the properties, leaving the unsecured creditors and debtors with nothing.  We stopped this tactic and kept the properties out of foreclosure.  Lehman failed to disclose, both when they sought relief from stay to foreclose, and when they filed proofs of claims, that they had sold most of the loans, pre-petition, to a third party pursuant to a repurchase agreement or so-called “repo” financing transaction.  They also tried to invoke their own automatic stay in New York to prevent us from subordinating the liens.

We overcame all of these obstacles.  When Lehman would not come clean about the repo transfers, we subpoenaed JP Morgan, and that’s when all the evidence came out.  The Court ruled that the repos were true sales and that Lehman misrepresented its ownership of the loans.  This adversely affected Lehman’s credibility with the court.

We also filed suit against non-debtor Lehman affiliates for over a $100 million in damages for breach of development agreements.  After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the repos were a true sale, we filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that by selling the loans, Lehman could not perform, and thereby breached, its restructuring agreement with the debtors.  The motion was pending when the case settled.  We were up against top firms—Weil Gotshal and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones—and we fended off all their attacks and did so efficiently.  In connection with electronic discovery, we hired two dozen contract attorneys, did a short-term rental of vacant office space and computers, and set up a war room where we digested several million pages of documents in a few months, distilling and organizing the key documents for use at deposition and trial.

We took or defended nearly thirty depositions on both coasts.  When the case settled, the unsecured creditors received approximately 50 cents on the dollar pursuant to a plan of reorganization, instead of nothing as sought by Lehman; and the debtor, SunCal, received millions on its claims and acquired two of the properties. [Read more]

P-Wave Holdings/The Gores Group
Represented P-Wave Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of The Gores Group (a Los Angeles–based global private equity firm), in international arbitration proceedings against two large telecommunication infrastructure companies and their parent company based in Lebanon.  The client bought assets in a bankruptcy per Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code including the rights to money owed under a reseller agreement.  We filed for arbitration in California per the dispute resolution clause in the agreement and also sued the owner of the company personally for breach of warranty of authority.  The dispute involved complex issues of international law—including whether Lebanese law applied—and bankruptcy.  The arbitrator also addressed issues relating to whether the parent company was released and/or a novation took place—ultimately determining that the parent company was not released, there was no novation, and the parent was on the hook for the entire award.  The arbitrator awarded our client over $11 million, the entire amount sought under the contract, plus interest and attorney fees.  Respondents’ counterclaim for in excess of $25 million was rejected in its entirety. [Read more]

Natrol
Represented the debtor—a prominent nutraceutical company—before and after the company filed for bankruptcy.  The company filed for bankruptcy to avoid being taken over by its primary lender, an aggressive multi-billion dollar hedge fund in New York.  We asserted claims against the hedge fund for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to take over the company in a “loan to own” scheme.

We were able to resolve the claims against the hedge fund and, in the process of the bankruptcy, also successfully defended against several class actions asserted against Natrol.  The company ultimately emerged from bankruptcy with several million dollars in equity after all debt was paid off.

Woodbridge
Represents plaintiff Michael Goldberg, trustee of the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust, in a lawsuit filed against multiple law firms and individual attorneys accusing them of aiding and abetting the real estate investment firm, Woodbridge Group, in a five year $1.3 billion Ponzi scheme.

In 2019, former Woodbridge CEO/founder Robert Shapiro was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for orchestrating a scheme in which he defrauded investors—mainly retirees—by using investor money to purchase properties through sham loans made by “third-party” entities secretly controlled by Shapiro.  Shapiro used money from new investors to pay back old investors and cover deficiencies, also taking millions for his own personal use.

In our lawsuit, we allege that the law firm defendants committed securities violations and fraudulent acts, including knowingly and/or negligently preparing loan documents containing false statements, concealing material facts, assisting in the creation of phony borrowing “entities,” and preparing opinion letters in furtherance of the scheme.  The liquidation Trust is part of a plan approved by the bankruptcy court to assist investors in recovering from their losses.  The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $500 million, as well as restitution and punitive damages, to reimburse several thousand victims for their losses.

Byron Allen (Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc.)
Represented Entertainment Studios (ES), an African-American owned media company, in civil rights lawsuits against AT&T, DirecTV, Comcast and Charter for discrimination by refusing carriage of ES channels, alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.  The cases against AT&T and DirecTV were resolved amicably and ES channels are now distributed on both platforms.  The Comcast/Charter cases were litigated in Federal District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and before the U.S. Supreme Court.  In June 2020, following a decision by the Supreme Court, the Comcast case was resolved and ES channels are now distributed by Comcast.  The Charter settled thereafter, with channel carriage obtained.  These are important cases addressing a long-standing and serious issue in our society; namely, economic inclusion of African-American owned businesses in the country’s economy, particularly in the media industry. [Read more]

Represents Byron Allen and his company Entertainment Studios (ES) in a lawsuit against McDonald’s brought under §1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for discrimination for refusing to advertise on ES networks.   

Represents Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios, Weather Group and other companies in a lawsuit filed against The Nielsen (US) Company alleging that Nielsen’s ratings system is fundamentally unreliable.  The lawsuit alleges that Nielsen concealed these flaws with the intent to induce Weather Group (owner/operator of The Weather Channel and other properties) and Entertainment Studios (owner/operator of cable lifestyle channels) to pay millions in fees.

San Diego Police Department
On behalf of the family and estate of Fridoon Rawshan Nehad, secured a $3 million settlement in a civil rights, wrongful death and excessive force police shooting case against the San Diego Police Department on the eve of trial.  Fridoon was shot and killed by a San Diego police officer and the incident was captured on surveillance video.  Before the Ninth Circuit, Miller Barondess obtained a reversal of the grant of summary judgment and reinstated the lawsuit, remanding the case back to District Court for a jury trial.  The case also involved briefing before the U.S. Supreme Court which requested a brief on the qualified immunity issue.  The settlement amount is an unusually high number for San Diego. [Read more]

Miller Barondess defends private and public employers in high stakes litigation involving claims of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour, and wrongful termination.  We also defend cases involving disability discrimination and accommodation, and family and medical leave rights.

County of Los Angeles
Obtained dismissal of an action against the County of Los Angeles challenging the County’s practices for recouping inadvertent overpayments through payroll deductions.  We succeeded in dismissing the entire lawsuit on demurrer.  In February 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued a published decision holding that dismissal was proper under the home rule doctrine.  This win resolves a long time recurring issue that has impacted payroll administrators in departments across LA County—and counties and cities statewide.  The decision will help governmental employers understand how to tackle their internal employment compensation matters. [Read more]

County of Los Angeles
Won summary judgment on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in an action filed by an employee against the County, and other employees and supervisors of the County, alleging whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and FEHA retaliation.  Plaintiff also contended he was harassed and mistreated by coworkers and supervisors due to plaintiff being African American.  Plaintiff alleged he was openly chastised, excluded from meetings, given unwarranted performance evaluations, and aggressively transferred.  Defendants denied all contentions and argued that plaintiff could not prove the actions taken against him were racially motivated.  As to whether plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, defendants established that despite the “aggressive” transfer, plaintiff’s pay and benefits were not reduced and did not constitute a demotion.  In fact, plaintiff was transferred as a result of his interpersonal conflicts with his colleagues as well as his surreptitious actions in trying to transfer one county program to another department without the permission or knowledge of his superiors.  In addition, since his transfer, plaintiff admitted that he continued to receive his full salary and benefits (in excess of $200,000 per year), reported favorable performance reviews since the transfer, and received salary increases in recent years.  Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. 

County of Los Angeles
In a ruling recognized as a San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal Top Defense Verdict 2020, won a summary judgment ruling on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in a FLSA class action lawsuit relating to the State of California’s IHSS program, in which plaintiffs sought nearly $50 million.  Represented the County of Los Angeles in a lawsuit brought by home care providers who work in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), a program that provides in-home assistance to eligible aged, blind and disabled individuals.  The Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) is the administrative agency that oversees the IHSS at the county level.  Plaintiffs, both providers in the IHSS program, filed a class action lawsuit against the County for wage and hour violations, alleging that they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but were not properly compensated for overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Almost 12,000 IHSS providers joined the case as opt-in plaintiffs, collectively seeking approximately $50 million from the County in compensatory and liquidated damages for unpaid overtime, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.  The County contended that it was not liable for paying Plaintiffs’ overtime hours because it was not Plaintiffs’ employer.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, ruling that the County is not an employer of IHSS providers under the FLSA because the County performs only limited administrative responsibilities in the IHSS program pursuant to state law and directives.  This holding disposed of the entire lawsuit in the County’s favor because only an employer can be held liable for unpaid overtime under the FLSA.  This is an important ruling that clarifies the role the County plays in implementing government programs.  It is particularly important in light of the size of California’s IHSS program, which includes all of the state’s 58 counties and currently has 520,000 participating providers. [Read more]

Applied Merchant Systems
Defended Applied Merchant Systems (“AMS”) in two separate lawsuits, one filed by Bancard Systems, Inc. (“BSI”) alleging fraud and breach of contract, and the other filed by a former AMS employee alleging fraudulent inducement and wrongful termination. In February 2016, AMS purchased BSI and acquired key BSI employees, including the former AMS employee, who entered into an employment agreement to serve as VP of AMS.  In February 2018, AMS terminated the former employee’s employment for various acts of misconduct.  AMS filed a cross-complaint against the former employee for breach of his employment and confidentiality agreements, conversion and civil theft.  On March 7, 2019, a judge granted summary judgment in favor of AMS in the fraudulent inducement and wrongful termination action, defeating all of the former employee’s causes of action.  In May 2019, the BSI action was settled favorably in mediation. [Read more]

University of California, Riverside
In a ruling recognized as a San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal Top Verdict 2017, obtained a ground-breaking jury verdict against the University of California in a gender discrimination case.  Obtained a $2.5 million jury award on behalf of a former Chief Campus Counsel of UC Riverside against the University of California.  The jury found that plaintiff was retaliated against in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act for reporting gender discrimination at UC Riverside.  The jury also found that plaintiff was retaliated against in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.  Plaintiff was terminated on the eve of a federal audit to determine whether UC Riverside complied with its obligations under state and federal law to prohibit discrimination, retaliation, and harassment on the campus, in an effort to conceal information from the auditors.  The firm also obtained an attorney fee award of $1.5 million. [Read more]

ENTERTAINMENT/MEDIA

Representative clients include movie and television studios, record companies, musicians, actors, songwriters, managers, promoters, studio executives, and media personalities.

The firm has represented some of the biggest names in the business, including Elton John, Larry King, Nick Nolte, Lionel Richie, and Bob Dylan.

Smokey Robinson
Won a federal jury defense verdict representing Motown legend William “Smokey” Robinson against a former manager who sued the singer/songwriter for breach of contract, claiming he was owed commissions on Smokey’s concerts and touring. The jury rejected plaintiff’s entire claim for commissions worth over $2 million. [Read more]

Virtual Sonics
Obtained a jury defense verdict after a week-long federal trial representing Virtual Sonics, a cutting-edge technology company specializing in developing digital music instruments, and its founders, composers Jeremy and Julian Soule. Scott and Skyler Mednick, two former investors, filed the lawsuit and sought millions of dollars in compensation.  The jury returned a verdict in less than an hour, agreeing with our clients that the Mednicks got everything they were owed when they sold their interests to the company several years ago. [Read more]

Journey
Secured a settlement on behalf of Neal Schon, the founder and principal member of iconic rock band Journey, in a dispute with former band members over rights to the Journey name.  Our client secured the rights in and to the Journey name—concerts, merchandising, everything.  The settlement ensures that the band will release albums and go out on tour, continuing its great success of more than 40 years. [Read more]

Bad Wolves
Settled a heavily litigated dispute between the rock band Bad Wolves and its former lead singer, Tommy Vext.  The resolution followed an injunction issued by U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Judge Jesse Furman, in favor of our client, which enjoined Vext from releasing any of Bad Wolves’ copyrighted materials and other relief.  

Backstreet Boys
Resolved a long-standing dispute for the Backstreet Boys against a Chinese concert promoter over performances that occurred in 2015 in China.

Mötley Crüe
Obtained an order of protection for Mötley Crüe’s bassist Nikki Sixx in Tennessee state court against a stalker who was posting deranged and threatening messages about Sixx and his family on social media.  The court prohibited any contact or posts, ordered the respondent to supervised counseling, and referred the matter for criminal review.

Represented Mötley Crüe in connection with the band’s acclaimed biopic “The Dirt,” which was released in March 2019 on Netflix. 

Helped Mötley Crüe re-group following a challenge to its management; with its manager in place, the band subsequently released a comeback album and embarked on a global tour, generating critical acclaim and financial success.

Represented Mötley Crüe, Live Nation, and several other companies in defense of copyright infringement action brought by photographers.  The photographers alleged that they were the photographers for Mötley Crüe’s iconic album covers from the 1980s and that the defendants infringed their copyrights by using those photographs without their permission to promote and create merchandise for Mötley Crüe’s 2014/2015 Final Tour.  Case settled favorably on the eve of summary judgment hearing.

Defeated copyright claims brought by two photographers who sued Mötley Crüe for millions of dollars over the use of the band’s iconic images—including the Girls, Girls, Girls and Theatre of Pain album covers.  We were able to disprove that the photographers had any claims to the images and secured the rights to the images for the band in perpetuity. 

Won summary judgment on behalf of Mötley Crüe and its drummer, Tommy Lee, dismissing all claims for idea theft and trade secret violations relating to the band’s use of “Tommy Lee Loop Coaster” during concerts.

Kovac Film Co.
Represented film studio Kovac Film Co. against PMC Retaliators and Fluke Studios, involving financing and producing a feature-length motion picture called “The Retaliators.”  Per the parties’ agreement, Kovac retained sole authority on all creative, financing, and business decisions regarding the film’s development, production, and distribution.  When PMC and Fluke disagreed with Kovac’s creative direction, they brought meritless claims against Kovac for breach of contract.  Kovac counter-claimed that PMC and Fluke failed to meet their funding obligations per the agreement, made costly and unauthorized changes to the script, and created significant pre-production and production issues on the film.  After a three-week JAMS arbitration, Miller Barondess obtained an award in Kovac’s favor on the breach of contract claims.  Arbitrator awarded all requested damages to Kovac and dismissed all of PMC’s claims for lack of evidence. 

Universal Music Group
Obtained summary judgment in federal court on behalf of Universal Music Group against claims of trademark infringement, dilution, and false designation of origin brought by a former band manager claiming that Universal improperly used the band’s name and owed him millions in royalties.

Rod Stewart
Recovered millions of dollars on behalf of Rod Stewart from a former manager who tried to enforce a management contract after pilfering funds from the artist.  Since then, we have won multiple cases for Rod, including victories in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal.

Don Felder
Don Felder was a key Eagles member and wrote the music for the band’s biggest hit, Hotel California.  After he left the band, we litigated his claims and ultimately obtained a settlement for the singer/songwriter. 

Estate of Tupac Shakur
Represented the Estate of Tupac Shakur and Afeni Shakur in litigation against Morgan Creek Production over the rights to a film based on Tupac Shakur’s life, which ultimately became the motion picture, “All Eyes on Me.”

Five Finger Death Punch
Represented the band Five Finger Death Punch in a contract dispute with label Prospect Park and its owner, Jeff Kwatinetz, over the release of an album.  We successfully resolve the case, enabling the band to tour and record music.

SPORTS

Representative clients include NBA players, NFL head coaches, NBA coaches, MLB players, and sports agents.

L.A. Clippers Arena
Successfully represented the City of Inglewood and Mayor James Butts against Madison Square Garden’s attempts to block construction of a new arena in Inglewood for the Los Angeles Clippers of the National Basketball Association.  Our firm played a key role in defending the City and Mayor Butts against Madison Square Garden’s claims in seven different lawsuits; and worked hand-in-glove with the Clippers’ lawyers.  We mounted an aggressive defense in response to the lawsuits and got three of the related lawsuits dismissed.  On the heels of these victories and the filing of a summary judgment motion, the parties reached a settlement on May 5, 2020, by way of the Clippers purchasing The Forum and MSG dropping all opposition to the project. [Read more]

Anschutz Entertainment Group
Secured dismissal on behalf of Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), a leading sports and entertainment company, of copyright infringement claims relating to the soundtrack for the motion picture “This Is It,” starring entertainer Michael Jackson.

Brees Dream Foundation
Obtained favorable settlement for the Brees Dream Foundation, a non-profit charity founded by NFL quarterback Drew Brees and his wife, in prosecuting a breach of contract and fiduciary duties lawsuit concerning the Foundation’s annual charity golf tournament in San Diego, CA.

Boxing Promoter and Boxers
Successfully represented boxing promoter Top Rank, boxer Manny Pacquiao, and former welterweight champion Antonio Margarito in various matters, including breach of contract, defamation, and matters before the New York and Nevada State Athletic Commissions.

Representative clients include private equity, venture capital, investment banks, privately funded investors, commercial banks and other financial institutions.

GI Partners
Represented private equity firm GI Partners in litigation over GI’s purchase and ownership of a portfolio company in the skilled nursing industry.  The underlying claim against the skilled nursing business was for elder abuse among other claims relating to the death of a patient.  Our client was sued on an alter ego theory.  We obtained a complete dismissal with prejudice on the eve of trial through a settlement in which GI paid no money.

Anthem/MIC Strategic Partners
Represented Anthem/MIC Strategic Partners in a direct and derivative action on behalf of the shareholders of Cynvenio BioSystems.  It is alleged that Anthem and other shareholders lost millions of dollars in value after a senior officer, director and lender, with aid and assistance from the corporate secretary and external counsel, breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated Cynvenio’s assets.  The fallout caused Cynvenio, a once prominent biotech company specializing in cancer treatment, to lose over two-thirds of its work force and forego clinical partnerships with leading healthcare institutions.  The complaint asserted seven direct and derivative causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment.  The case was complicated by defendants’ unsuccessful attempt to have a special litigation committee appointed to review the claims in the lawsuit.  The case was resolved through mediation resulting in a favorable and confidential settlement. 

Bank of the West
Prevailed at trial on behalf of Bank of the West in an action where plaintiffs sought more than $20 million in damages relating to lender liability and fraud claims.  Plaintiffs alleged that the bank fraudulently induced them to sign loan guarantees.  According to plaintiffs, the bank concealed the fact that a co-borrower was already in default when the guarantees were signed; that the co-borrower had violated numerous loan covenants; and that the co-borrower had been in severe financial trouble for years.  After a two-week trial, the court ruled in the Bank’s favor on every claim.  We also recovered $1.4 million in attorney fees for the Bank. 

East West Bank
Won a unanimous jury verdict on behalf of East West Bank in a multi-party lender liability case seeking in excess of $50 million.  The Bank served as the lender for a successful seafood importing business run by three siblings.  After one of the siblings left to start a competing business, plaintiffs alleged the Bank helped setup the new competing business and that the Bank was complicit in the sibling’s theft of assets and trade secrets from the original business.  After a three-week trial, the jury found no liability on the Bank’s part, and the court awarded attorney fees to the Bank. [Read more]

Cathay Bank
Defended Cathay Bank against a borrower who sued for breach of contract and fraud.  The borrower obtained loans of approximately $4.5 million from the Bank to buy property to be developed into a condominium project.  We counter-claimed for breach of the personal loan agreement and sought to recover the principal amount of the unsecured personal note that was part of the loan package.  We filed summary judgment to dismiss the borrower’s multi-million dollar claims and filed a separate summary judgment motion for breach of the personal loan agreement.  A panel of three arbitrators unanimously granted both motions, dismissed all of the borrower’s claims, and awarded the bank attorney fees of $1.5 million. [Read more]

P-Wave Holdings/The Gores Group
Represented P-Wave Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of The Gores Group (a Los Angeles–based global private equity firm), in international arbitration proceedings against two large telecommunication infrastructure companies and their parent company based in Lebanon.  The client bought assets in a bankruptcy per Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code including the rights to money owed under a reseller agreement.  We filed for arbitration in California per the dispute resolution clause in the agreement and also sued the owner of the company personally for breach of warranty of authority.   The dispute involved complex issues of international law—including whether Lebanese law applied—and bankruptcy.  The arbitrator also addressed issues relating to whether the parent company was released and/or a novation took place—ultimately determining that the parent company was not released, there was no novation, and the parent was on the hook for the entire award.  The arbitrator awarded our client over $11 million, the entire amount sought under the contract, plus interest and attorney fees.  Respondents’ counterclaim for in excess of $25 million was rejected in its entirety. [Read more]

The Gores Group
Obtained a settlement in excess of $20 million on behalf of the The Gores Group in a case against Fifth and Pacific Companies, formerly known as Liz Claiborne, in the Southern District of New York regarding breach of a merger agreement.

California Bank & Trust
Obtained a jury verdict for $3.4 million for California Bank & Trust and defeated cross-claims seeking over $35 million in damages for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence.

Won a complete dismissal of all class action claims against California Bank & Trust arising from the bank’s takeover of failed assets from the FDIC.  All class action claims were dismissed on the eve of a class certification hearing.  Miller Barondess then obtained summary judgment on the remaining claims.

Lehman Bros.
Handled a series of bet-the-company cases for Lehman Bros., including filing suit in federal court arising from the Lehman Bros. bankruptcy wherein our client sought to equitably subordinate over $2 billion in Lehman mortgage liens to the claims of unsecured creditors.  We also filed suit in state court against (non-debtor) Lehman entities, conducted extensive discovery in both courts and filed a motion for summary judgment.  The cases settled on favorable terms. [Read more]

Representative clients include health systems, hospitals, medical & physician groups, skilled nursing care facilities, pharmaceutical companies, and vitamin and nutritional supplements.

Windsor Healthcare
Won summary judgment wiping out a $9 million claim in an insurance dispute brought by a receiver of a failed insurance company (Ullico) who sued a group of Windsor skilled care facilities claiming that they owed deductibles on policies they purchased with the carrier through an elaborate captive insurance structure.  The trial judge threw out the receiver’s case after Miller Barondess obtained exculpatory evidence and case ending deposition testimony in discovery that confirmed Windsor’s interpretation of the insurance policies. [Read more]

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Represented Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in a lawsuit filed against The Saul and Joyce Brandman Foundation alleging breach of contract.  Cedars-Sinai and the Brandman Foundation entered into a Pledge Agreement whereby the Foundation agreed to pay Cedars-Sinai $10 million over ten years.  Cedars-Sinai agreed to use fifty-percent of the funds for clinical care, research, and equipment at the Brandman Breast Cancer Center; and attribute the other fifty-percent of the funds to permanently naming a space within Cedars-Sinai’s Advanced Health Sciences Pavilion in honor of the Brandman Foundation.  When the defendant failed to make its payments, we obtained an $8 million writ of attachment, whereupon the case settled.

Memorial Health System
Represented Memorial and Greater Newport Physicians, Inc. (“GNP”).  Memorial and GNP are a part of Memorial Health Services (“MHS”)—a nonprofit integrated delivery system that includes six top hospitals in Orange County, outpatient health centers, imaging centers and medical groups.  Memorial and GNP filed suit against Hoag Medical Group, Inc., a competing Orange County-based doctors group.  The lawsuit alleged that Hoag intentionally interfered with binding contractual obligations between Memorial and GNP and physicians, in order to steal those doctors and induce them to breach their contracts.  Memorial and GNP separately filed suit against four doctors who prematurely terminated their contracts, did not return payments that were contingent on continued service through 2017, and are now working for Hoag. 

EZ Lube/Invotex
Represented the defendants in a multi-million dollar fraudulent conveyance action.  There, claims exceeding $50 million for fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a leveraged buy-out were asserted against our clients, who were the owners and directors of the debtor.

We litigated the case for two years and then settled for a small fraction of the $50 million by way of the excess carrier dropping down and paying the settlement; and we then litigated as co-plaintiffs with the excess carrier in a bad faith action against the underlying carrier.  All of this litigation was settled on favorable terms.

Juanita’s Foods
Secured a preliminary injunction for Juanita’s Foods, one of the largest Mexican food producers/distributors in the U.S., against Dominguez Family Enterprises (“DFE”), an Oregon-based business that produces/distributes Mexican food products.  DFE uses the “Juanita’s” name on its products per a consent agreement between Juanita’s Foods and DFE whereby DFE is limited to selling its products under the Juanita’s mark to the Pacific Northwest States.  After discovering that DFE violated the geographical restriction and sold its products with the “Juanita’s” mark outside the Pacific Northwest, including in California, Juanita’s Foods filed an injunction that Dominguez violated trademark law and breached the consent agreement.  The court ordered that DFE is enjoined from attempting to proffer or sell any food product, or advertising or offering for sale any food product, under the Juanita’s name outside the Pacific Northwest; and is enjoined from taking any steps to obtain a registration of the Juanita’s name. [Read more]

The Belvedere Hotel Partnership
Represented the Peninsula Hotel Beverly Hills against the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Beverly Hills in a $50 plus million trade secret theft case.  In the lawsuit, Peninsula alleged that Waldorf’s managing director solicited Peninsula’s employee while he was still employed at Peninsula and used him to obtain Peninsula’s trade secrets including customer lists and guest preferences—and then rewarded him with a job at Waldorf afterwards.  The hotly contested litigation against three law firms settled right before trial.  The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Netflix
Represented the producers of the Netflix documentary film White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch in pre-litigation matters; successfully resolved the intellectual property and contractual disputes to allow the film to be made and released.

Represented the producer and owner of the documentary film Hired Gun in litigation to protect intellectual property and contractual rights; successfully settled the case after filing a hard-hitting complaint in the Central District of California.

Representative clients include land developers, homebuilders, lenders, real estate private equity, and investment firms.

Janis F. Horn Separate Property Trust
Represented the Horn Trust, majority owner of four valuable commercial properties worth $100+ million, against the minority owner. Issues included the alleged wrongful taking of company funds, management and control of the properties, and validity of the buy-sell provision in contracts, among other issues. The case raised cutting-edge legal issues related to the reach of civil claims based on California Penal Code §496(c), which allows for treble damages for receipt of stolen property. This complex case involved two different actions: counterclaims by the minority stockholder and an appeal from an anti-SLAPP order. The Los Angeles County Superior Court trial date was vacated on the eve of trial when the pandemic hit. The case settled on favorable terms. Our client achieved all their litigation objectives, including full management and control of the companies, elimination of an unfavorable buy-sell right in the prior contracts, and a monetary payment.

ER Group LRS LLC
Represented real estate investor ER Group, a real estate investment firm with significant properties in the U.S. and Mexico, against Laurus, a real estate company that collapsed after the discovery of financial improprieties. Our client had invested nearly $44 million with Laurus. We brought one of the first lawsuits after the investment firm’s collapse. The defendants included a Big Five audit firm and a large consulting firm, which ER alleged were involved in aiding the fraud. The lawsuit was settled on confidential terms. We subsequently represented the investor in litigation in New York against a large hedge fund over one of the properties the investor obtained an interest in as a result of the settlement. The lawsuit sought recovery of an $11 million investment ER made into a prominent commercial property in Los Angeles called HHLA. The second lawsuit in New York was also settled on confidential terms.

Intracorp
Represented a real estate developer who was unable to sell the requisite number of condominium units, resulting in a default under the loan agreement.  Facing an imminent foreclosure sale, we obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the lender from foreclosing on a large condominium project based on the impossibility of performance due to the economic crisis. [Thomson Reuters Report].  This victory was reported on in the media as relevant to claims of impossibility of performance and frustration of purpose that have emanated from the pandemic. [Miller Barondess obtained victories based on equitable doctrines applicable to the COVID-19 pandemic].

SunCal
Represented SunCal in breach of contract actions in Riverside over the sale of over 600 acres near La Quinta and over 1,200 acres in Desert Hot Springs.  During the diligence period, property values jumped significantly so the sellers reneged during escrow.  We took the cases to trial.  In one, we won a $6 million jury verdict, and the verdict was affirmed on appeal.  In the other, the case settled for $12 million during trial.

Cathay Bank
Defended Cathay Bank against a borrower who sued for breach of contract and fraud.  The borrower obtained loans of approximately $4.5 million from the Bank to buy property to be developed into a condominium project.  We counter-claimed for breach of the personal loan agreement and sought to recover the principal amount of the unsecured personal note that was part of the loan package.  We filed summary judgment to dismiss the borrower’s multi-million dollar claims and filed a separate summary judgment motion for breach of the personal loan agreement.  A panel of three arbitrators unanimously granted both motions, dismissed all of the borrower’s claims, and awarded the bank attorneys’ fees of $1.5 million. [Read more]