What We Do

Our appellate team excels at developing tailored case strategies that accomplish each client’s unique goals. We represent clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme Court, California Courts of Appeal, and the Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Our appellate expertise includes employment, whistleblower, First Amendment, defamation, libel, insurance coverage, contracts, real estate, and malicious prosecution cases. We also have extensive experience advocating for clients in anti-SLAPP appeals.

Our team helps clients secure success on appeal by:

• Applying a deep knowledge of appellate practice and procedure to identify and reframe issues, and to capitalize on favorable standards of review;
• Drafting creative, entertaining, and compelling briefs, writ petitions, and amicus briefs to capture the attention of, and persuade, courts; and
• Collaborating with trial counsel and in-house counsel on significant pre- and post-trial motions to ensure a favorable and complete record for appeal.

Our appellate highlights include:

• Successfully represented the City of Inglewood in a July 2025 landmark victory before the California Supreme Court in a pivotal case that clarified elected public officials are not ’employees’ under the state’s whistleblower protection laws (Labor Code §1102.5(b)). The case arose from retaliation claims brought by the elected City Treasurer following public disputes with City leadership. While initially challenged at the trial level, Miller Barondess secured a reversal on appeal and ultimately prevailed at the California Supreme Court. This ruling clarifies that political disputes involving elected officials cannot be reframed as employment retaliation claims—a key win for public entities.
• Reversed an $8.1 million judgment awarded to a former Sheriff’s Department Deputy on his FEHA retaliation and harassment claims against the County of Los Angeles. Miller Barondess was brought in after the jury trial and obtained a complete reversal on appeal. (Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 2022, B304818). On retrial, we effectively rebutted the deputy’s claims that the Department subjected him to disability harassment and retaliation for taking medical leave. Instead, the evidence showed he violated department policy and made false statements to his supervisors. On the fourth day of trial, the deputy’s claims collapsed under the scrutiny, and the Court instructed the jury that a key aspect of his testimony was untrue. He voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice, successfully concluding nearly 10 years of litigation with a decisive victory for the County.
• Obtained an immediate stay and ultimate reversal of a superior court’s PRA ruling in the County of Los Angeles’ favor, successfully preserving critical privileges through writ petition in the Court of Appeal. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 2025, B341979).
• Made new law on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in a case addressing an employer’s ability to recoup inadvertent overpayments through payroll deductions. After we achieved a dismissal on demurrer, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs’ appeal claimed a provision of the memorandum of understanding was unenforceable under wage garnishment law and the Labor Code. The Court of Appeal’s published decision held that dismissal was proper under the home rule doctrine, which gives the County the exclusive right to regulate matters relating to its employees’ compensation. This win resolves a long recurring issue that has impacted payroll administrators in public entities statewide. (42 Cal.App.5th 918 (2019)). [Read more]
• Achieved a win on behalf of the County of Los Angeles affirming the Sheriff lacked authority to rehire a deputy without the approval of the Board of Supervisors or the County Counsel’s Office. This Court of Appeal victory was the result of extensive litigation involving former Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s attempts to reinstate a former deputy who had been discharged following allegations of assault. (County of Los Angeles v. Villanueva, 2022, B310871). [Read more]
• In a decision recognized as a Daily Journal Top Appellate Reversal 2021, we won a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruling vacating a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge David Carter ordering that the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles house skid row’s homeless population within six months and deposit $1 billion into an escrow account. [Read more]
• On behalf of the family and estate of Fridoon Rawshan Nehad, Miller Barondess 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, we 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]
• Won a published decision from the California Court of Appeal on behalf of Prime Healthcare against a patient alleging Prime had violated the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by failing to disclose Evaluation and Management (EMS) fees charged in the emergency room through signage or other methods. These disclosure issues affect healthcare providers across California. (94 Cal.App.5th 166 (2023)).
• Represented African American media mogul Byron Allen and his company Entertainment Studios in lawsuits against AT&T, DirecTV, Comcast, and Charter for discrimination by refusing carriage of Entertainment Studios’ television channels, alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The cases were litigated in federal district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and concluded with our firm securing favorable settlements in all cases. These are groundbreaking cases addressing systemic discrimination against Black-owned businesses, a particular problem in the media industry. [Read more]
• 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]
• 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. We 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]
• 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]
• Won a reversal of the trial court’s order granting nonsuit in a lawsuit against Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation stemming from its termination of a former automobile dealer/franchisee. The franchisee owned five Nissan and two Toyota dealerships and was financed, and ultimately closed, by Nissan in 2008 amid the Great Recession. On retrial after remand, a jury awarded our clients $256,450,000, including $121,900,000 in compensatory damages and $134,550,000 in punitive damages. The case was recognized by the Daily Journal as a Top Verdict in California. [Read more]
• 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.
• 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]

Miller Barondess represents debtors, creditors, trustees, and other stakeholders in complex bankruptcy litigation arising from high-stakes financial disputes.

Our representative cases include:

• Secured a significant victory in Alcon Entertainment’s effort to acquire derivative rights to select films from the Village Roadshow bankruptcy—rights that would allow Alcon to produce sequels, prequels, and remakes of major titles such as Wonka, The Matrix trilogy, and the Ocean’s Eleven series. We took on the matter in September 2025 with trial set for October 20, 2025, conducted multiple depositions and expedited discovery, and prepared the case for trial on extremely short notice. Warner Bros. and Regency objected to the sale and sought to block the transfer of rights, but after we presented our witnesses, cross-examined the opposition, and argued the case over a day and a half, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved the sale and rejected all challenges. The ruling not only grants Alcon the derivative rights but also completes its acquisition of Village Roadshow’s extensive feature-film library, one of the largest independent portfolios in the industry. Alcon now has valuable rights to participate in the financing of several significant future movies. Any purchaser of Warner Bros. will be required to honor Alcon’s participation rights.

• As litigation counsel, represented entities that owned 22 major real estate projects affected by the Great Recession, where construction halted mid-project and left more than $300 million in unsecured creditor claims. Although Lehman initially agreed to provide funding, it failed to do so, leaving vendors, contractors, and surety bond providers unpaid. We placed the projects into bankruptcy in the Central District of California, our home court, rather than the main Lehman proceedings in New York, and filed suit to subordinate more than $2 billion in Lehman mortgage liens.

Lehman sought to foreclose on the properties, leaving the debtors and unsecured creditors with nothing. We blocked those efforts and kept the properties out of foreclosure. Lehman also failed to disclose—both in seeking relief from the automatic stay and in filing proofs of claim—that it had sold most of the loans pre-petition to a third party through repurchase agreement (“repo”) financing transactions. It further attempted to invoke its own automatic stay in New York to prevent us from subordinating the liens.

We overcame each of these obstacles. When Lehman refused to disclose the repo transfers, we subpoenaed JPMorgan, which brought the evidence to light. The court ultimately ruled that the repo transactions were true sales and that Lehman had misrepresented its ownership of the loans, undermining its credibility with the court.

We also filed suit against non-debtor Lehman affiliates seeking more than $100 million in damages for breach of development agreements. After the Ninth Circuit upheld the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the repo transactions were true sales, we moved for summary judgment on the ground that, by selling the loans, Lehman rendered itself unable to perform, and thus breached, its restructuring agreement with the debtors. That motion was pending when the case settled.

We faced leading firms, including Weil Gotshal and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, and successfully countered their challenges in an efficient and strategic manner. In connection with electronic discovery, we assembled a team of more than two dozen contract attorneys, secured short-term office space and equipment, and established a dedicated war room. There, we reviewed several million pages of documents within months, distilling and organizing key evidence for use in depositions and at trial.

We took or defended nearly thirty depositions on both coasts. When the case settled, unsecured creditors recovered approximately 50 cents on the dollar under a plan of reorganization—rather than nothing, as Lehman had sought—and the debtor, SunCal, recovered millions on its claims and acquired two of the properties. [Read more]

• 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]

• Represented the debtor, a prominent nutraceutical company, before and after it filed for bankruptcy. The company entered bankruptcy to avoid a takeover by its primary lender, an aggressive multi-billion-dollar New York hedge fund. We asserted claims against the hedge fund for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy to acquire the company through a “loan-to-own” scheme.

We resolved the claims against the hedge fund and, during the bankruptcy proceedings, successfully defended several class actions asserted against Natrol. The company ultimately emerged from bankruptcy with several million dollars in equity after all debt had been paid.

• 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]

Music Litigation

The 2026 arbitration victory for Mötley Crüe in its dispute with former guitarist Mick Mars represents a significant win for Miller Barondess, continuing the firm’s reputation as a powerhouse in high-stakes entertainment litigation, particularly in the music sector.

The arbitration ruling resolved a contentious and closely watched three-year dispute while undermining key elements of the public narrative Mick Mars had promoted in media interviews. After a full evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator rejected all of Mars’ claims, confirmed he forfeited touring revenue rights after ceasing to perform live, upheld his termination as an officer and director for legal cause, and ordered Mars to complete the sale of his ownership interest at book value, required repayment of substantial unrecouped tour advances—yielding a monetary judgment in the band’s favor. The victory also dismantled Mars’ public and sworn accusations that the band was not performing live, which he recanted under oath.

Leading the charge for Mötley Crüe was Sasha Frid, a founding partner of Miller Barondess, and head of the firm’s entertainment litigation practice. Sasha has represented the band and its members for over 15 years in a range of matters, including licensing and copyright issues, touring, merchandising, recording agreements, the band’s biopic The Dirt, and numerous litigation disputes. He has successfully won or resolved multiple cases for the band on both plaintiff and defense sides, including securing a summary judgment dismissal in an idea theft/trade secret case, prevailing in four separate copyright infringement actions across different jurisdictions, and securing a dismissal after a favorable demurrer ruling for Tommy Lee in a highly publicized lawsuit.

Also contributing to the firm’s established track record in music-related litigation, Sasha won a complete defense verdict for Motown legend Smokey Robinson in a federal jury trial against a former manager seeking millions in commissions and successfully vacated an $11.2 million judgment against rapper Trey Songz. He has also achieved confidential resolutions for musicians and bands, including Montell Fish, Logic, Bad Wolves, and Bush and Gavin Rossdale. Sasha’s practice extends to representing artists such as Big Time Rush, Nile Rodgers, Five Finger Death Punch, and others in complex disputes. He is currently representing the heavy metal band Pantera in an arbitration against the estates of two former members and recently resolved claims on behalf of a well-known artist against an insurance carrier.

A co-founding partner Skip Miller—one of California’s most formidable trial lawyers—spearheaded the development and expansion of the firm’s entertainment and music litigation practice and has long served as the go-to advocate for some of the biggest names in music, including Rod Stewart, Lionel Richie, Elton John, Bob Dylan, Steven Tyler, Axl Rose, Don Felder, Steely Dan, Stone Temple Pilots, KISS, Journey, and Mötley Crüe. From the firm’s early days, Skip and Sasha collaborated on many high-profile cases, including representing the Estate of Tupac Shakur in litigation against Morgan Creek Productions over the rights to a film based on Tupac’s life, which ultimately became All Eyez on Me.

Both Skip and Sasha have been repeatedly named to Billboard’s Top Music Lawyers list—for the eighth consecutive year in 2025—recognizing their broad-based music litigation work that spans fiduciary duty claims, contract enforcement, royalty disputes, and partnership dissolutions in the music world. Both litigators have also been recognized by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter as top music lawyers.

In another matter, Skip and Sasha secured a favorable settlement on behalf of the founder and principal member of the legendary rock band Journey in a dispute with former band members over rights to the Journey name, and successfully represented the band in a dispute over a recording agreement with a record label.

Partner Justin Ehrlich brings additional depth to Miller Barondess’s music litigation bench with a track record of representing high-profile artists in complex disputes. Most notably, Justin has represented the genre-defining rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers in litigation on multiple matters spanning 20 years.

Miller Barondess’ approach—bringing courtroom-tested litigation expertise to entertainment conflicts—positions the firm as a preferred choice for artists and bands facing litigation over band disputes, including touring revenue, control, intellectual property, and legacy rights.

Other notable representations include:

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

Entertainment Litigation

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 Eyez on Me.”

Sports Litigation

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

• 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. 
• 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.
• 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]