Letter from Edward M. Zimmerman, M.D
A valued client who wishes to remain anonymous describes his fateful decision at 3:00 a.m. that lead to his $962,000 verdict. Letter from Edward M. Zimmerman, M.D. Click here for more (PDF)
Wendy Mateo prevails against Darren Chaker
On October 4, 2012, the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint of Darren Chaker AKA Darren Del Nero AKA Darrin Delnero on the grounds of his claims arising from the exercise of Ms. Mateo’s right to comment on a matter of public interest. The Court of Appeal also ordered the decision published. The slip opinion is also may be reviewed on the Court of Appeal’s.
Anice Plikaytis prevails against Debra Roth!
Congratulations to Anice Plikaytis in her successful defense of the meritless claim by Debra Roth! The Jury, in their eminent wisdom, denied Debra Roth?s claims and found that Debra Roth had received $662,559.55 from Anice Plikaytis. A copy of the verdict can be review.
San Diego Jury finds Dan Holsenback’s client Ron Courtois liable; Judge Denton awards punitive damages.
On December 6, 2007, a San Diego Superior Court jury found that Ron Courtois (bottom of page 30, shirtless) violated fiduciary duties that he owed to inventor and electrical engineer Jesper Steensgaard. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $20,000, and found that Ron Courtois committed his actions with the malice, oppression, or fraud, as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages. Courtois and Steensgaard agreed that San Diego Superior Court Judge Steven R. Denton would hear the claim for punitive damages at a later time. Judge Denton heard the punitive damages portion of the trial and has awarded an additional $10,000 in punitive damages against Ron Courtois. The statement of decision is located. Remaining in the suit for determination are the claims for dissolution of a limited liability company (iCoustics LLC), injunctive relief for misappropriation of trade secrets, and for unfair competition remedies. A copy of the verdict is located here: Courtois v. Steensgaard verdict . Ron Courtois was represented by the law firm of Holsenback Taylor , by J. Daniel Holsenback , the attorney that initiated the case against Jesper Steensgaard, and then later dismissed the prosecution of his complaint in the case before trial. This is a photo of Professor Steensgaard and his attorney Scott McMillan after receiving the verdict:
Lytwyn v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
In Lytwyn v. Fry’s Richard Lytwyn, The McMillan Law Firm’s client, sued Fry’s Electronics for allegedly selling him a used CD-ROM writer that Fry’s represented as new. Lytwyn moved for summary adjudication of his claims that Fry’s had violated Business and Professions Code section 17531 and that Fry’s conduct also violated Business and Professions Code section 17200. Fry’s moved to have Lytwyn enjoined from prosecuting his case pending an appeal of another case involving a wholesaler. The trial court granted Fry’s motion, thus enjoining further action in the case. The McMillan Law Firm, however, appealed the trial court’s decision and secured a reversal of the trial court’s order. Decision (depublished pending California Supreme Court’s grant of review; review later dismissed)
Thomas v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
The McMillan Law Firm represented website operator Steve Thomas in the United States District Court case Steve Thomas v. Fry’s Electronics Inc., which involved Thomas’ rights to operate his “gripe” website concerning Fry’s Electronics, Inc., and its business practices. The Firm prevailed on Thomas’ appeal regarding the applicability of California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Purpose (anti-SLAPP) motions to strike in cases filed in Federal Courts. The Firm’s success resulted in a published ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ninth Circuit’s Opinion
Bivens v. Gallery Corp.
The Bivens v. Gallery Corporation case represented a continuing effort by The McMillan Law Firm to vindicate the rights of California’s citizens to be free from misleading advertising techniques that are prohibited under section 17504 of the California Business and Professions Code. Although the case was unsuccessful, the California Supreme Court ordered that the Court of Appeals decision, which was adverse to the Firm’s client, be de-published. Because the case is de-published it cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases.
The crux of Bivens v. Gallery Corporation concerned Webster Bivens who sued Gallery Corp. on behalf of the general public pursuant to sections 17204 and 17535 of the California Business and Professions Code. Bivens argued that Gallery Corp. misled the public by advertising and then refusing to sell single twin mattresses or box springs at the advertised unit price of $48. Although the California Court of Appeal found in favor of Gallery Corp., the Supreme Court of California granted Biven’s Petition for Review.
Call Now For A Case Evaluation