Significant Case Results by Subject
Venture Communications v. Falcon Communications
$26 million
In 1992, Mr. Klein represented a limited partner in a cable franchise, alleging a variety of causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Mr. Klein prevailed at trial and, after a court awarded judgment in favor of Mr. Klein's client, Mr. Klein's client received $26 million by way of settlement.
Affinitec v. Siemens
$5.7 million
In May 1999, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of approximately $5 million on behalf of one of its software clients against Siemens Business Communications, Inc., one of the largest companies in the world. Affinitec prevailed on all of its breach of contract claims and recovered 99% of all the damages it requested from the jury. Siemens filed a cross-complaint against Klein & Wilson's client, but recovered nothing.
Darla L. v. Southland LLC
$2.25 million
In April 2000, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of $2.25 million in a premises liability action stemming from a sexual assault on a tenant of a residential apartment complex. This was one of the largest verdicts of its kind in California.
STM Wireless, Inc. v. AmeriData, a Subsidiary of General Electric
$2 million
Klein & Wilson represented a public company in a complicated breach of contract action against a much larger corporation. Two weeks before trial, Klein & Wilson shared its mock trial results with the opposing side, and the parties reached a settlement worth more than $2 million.
CD Listening Bar, Inc. v. Doe Major Accounting Firm
$2 million
Klein & Wilson's client in this matter was one of the largest distributors of compact disc products in the United States. As the result of rapid growth, the client needed to replace its existing accounting software package with a higher-end package while remaining in operation. It retained a major accounting firm to do the work. The job was done poorly and Klein & Wilson's client lost millions of dollars. The difficulty in the case was proving the precise amount of damages. The case ultimately settled for $2 million.
STM Wireless, Inc. v. Gilat
$1.75 million
Klein & Wilson represented a public satellite communications company in a dispute with a competitor over a contract in Peru. The client won the contract, but alleged the competitor had stolen the contract using improper influence with Peruvian government ministers. When Klein & Wilson filed a suit on behalf of the client, the competitor's attorneys referred to the case as frivolous. Even the United States Congress became interested in the case and began its own inquiry. Ultimately, the competitor settled the case for $1.75 million.
Next Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Stauber Performance Ingredients, Inc.
$1.5 million
In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a nutritional supplements firm who sold $750,000 of nutritional supplements to defendant. Defendant alleged the product was defective and refused to pay. After Klein & Wilson filed a complaint, defendant filed a cross-complaint, alleging a variety of wrongful conduct by Klein & Wilson's client. After working up the case and attending a mediation where Klein & Wilson put on a multimedia trial presentation, defendant agreed to settle the case in an imaginative settlement which was worth almost $1.5 million to the client. This settlement would not have been possible had Klein & Wilson not done extensive briefing and put on a multimedia trial presentation at the mediation.
Devore v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company
$1.5 million
In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a dentist who could no longer practice dentistry because he suffered from chronic daily migraine headaches. The disability carrier refused to pay insurance proceeds on the ground the dentist had made misrepresentations in his application and because it challenged the extent of the dentist's disability. After Klein & Wilson received a plaintiff's verdict, the case settled for $1.5 million.
Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. Vera Townhomes
$1.5 million
In a construction defect case, Klein & Wilson represented a homeowners' association consisting of 48 condominium units. The developers and contractors denied there were construction defects and refused to pay anything. After conducting a "show-and-tell" presentation of the defects at the project and inviting all the defendants to destructive testing, the defendants recognized they would be found liable and paid Klein & Wilson's client approximately $1.5 million.
Guild, Inc. v. J.C. Penney
$1.4 million
In 2004, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of $1.4 million in a breach of implied contract and copyright infringement case against one of the largest retailers in the United States. The jury awarded every penny Klein & Wilson requested. The Court commented that Klein & Wilson's multimedia trial presentation was the best it had ever seen.
Doe Family v. Doe Corporation (Case Confidential)
$1.2 million
Klein & Wilson represented the Doe family, whose lives were shattered when their rented van experienced a flat tire and rolled several times. The family's five-year-old daughter was killed. Although the accident occurred in San Bernardino, a county notorious for low verdicts, Klein & Wilson was able to move the case to Orange County, where verdicts are larger. This was a case which required extreme sensitivity, as one of the allegations in the case was that Mr. Doe did not properly fasten his young daughter's seat belt. Klein & Wilson, therefore, took careful steps to position the case for a maximum settlement, without the father having to sit for a deposition where he would endure extensive cross-examination on the seat belt issue. Incurring only a minimum amount of expert expense, and after taking only two depositions, Klein & Wilson was able to settle the case for over $1.2 million. While not the largest verdict or settlement Klein & Wilson has ever achieved, the fact this settlement was achieved without the clients' having to testify (under the circumstances of this case) was one of Klein & Wilson's greatest case successes.
Gualderon v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company
$1 million
Opposing counsel in the Devore case, cited above, referred Ms. Gualderon to Klein & Wilson. After 20 years of building a garment company with $60 million in annual sales, Ms. Gualderon suffered a ruptured eardrum on an airplane while returning from a business trip. She experienced repeated infections and had three surgeries attempting to correct the problem, to no avail. As a result of her illness, she experienced tinnitus, nausea, and migraine headaches, which prevented her from serving as the chief executive officer of her company. Her insurance company refused to pay her insurance benefits, and Ms. Gualderon sought Klein & Wilson's assistance. Klein & Wilson was able to recover almost $1 million for Ms. Gualderon as a settlement of all claims without filing a lawsuit.
Doe Corporation v. Doe Corporation (Case Confidential)
$1 million
Klein & Wilson's client hired Texas counsel to try a breach of contract case. In the middle of trial, the attorney-client relationship deteriorated. In an unusual set of circumstances, the parties' attorneys signed a letter of intent regarding settlement terms, but the case was dismissed before the parties signed a formal settlement agreement. When the defendant refused to honor the settlement terms, the client hired new Texas counsel who tried to get the case reinstated. After eight months of being in limbo, the client asked Klein & Wilson to see what it could do. Klein & Wilson resolved the case with the defendant paying Klein & Wilson's client $1 million.
Project FasTags, Inc. v. Fascenelli, et al.
$1 million
Klein & Wilson represented one of two partners in the breakup of a lucrative partnership. In addition to various breach of fiduciary duty claims, Klein & Wilson represented the client in claims of copyright and trademark violation. Klein & Wilson was able to achieve a settlement resulting in a payment to its client of just over $1 million. In addition, the client retained control of the business.
Confidential Taxpayer v. Franchise Tax Board
$1 million
A former Klein & Wilson client found itself in trouble with the Franchise Tax Board for failing to make a proper accounting of taxable income. The dispute hinged upon a critical analysis of two key tax provisions. Klein & Wilson's client had been represented by a prominent tax firm, but after the tax firm was unsuccessful in getting a resolution with the Franchise Tax Board, Klein & Wilson filed an appeal of the Franchise Tax Board's decision and set a hearing before the State Board of Equalization. Although Klein & Wilson had never appeared before the State Board of Equalization, it received a four to one vote in favor of its client, saving the client over a million dollars in taxes and penalties.
Paritcher Khadem-Missagh v. Haroonian
$700,000
In 2000, Klein & Wilson represented a man who lent money to carpet salesmen in Beverly Hills. The carpet salesmen refused to pay the money back. Klein & Wilson obtained summary judgment as to two of the defendants and judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining defendants, resulting in judgments totaling $700,000.
Doe Corporation v. Doe Corporations (Case Confidential)
$535,000
In 2004 through 2006, Klein & Wilson settled a number of related copyright infringement cases against major garment manufacturers and some of the largest retailers in the world for $535,000.
Youssefzadeh v. 740 South Broadway
$533,505
Klein & Wilson represented an elderly partner who was cheated by his other partners, some of whom are family members. Klein & Wilson only stepped into the case after the client lost faith in the attorney handling the matter. In a bitterly fought arbitration, Klein & Wilson received a recovery for their client in the amount of $533,505 plus attorneys' fees.
Brutocao v. The Hunt Club Community Association
$500,000
Klein & Wilson's client was forced to sue his homeowners' association, which refused to allow him to build on plans it had previously approved. Klein & Wilson attempted to settle the case early through mediation, but the homeowners' association stubbornly refused to budge an inch. At trial, the court found in favor of Klein & Wilson's client and awarded not only substantial damages, but also the majority of the client's legal fees, finding that the quality of representation had been superior.
Curry v. Case
$500,000
Klein & Wilson's client was ousted from a partnership, although he received a commitment from his former partners that they would pay him for his interest upon the successful development of a particular project. After the development proceeded successfully, the partners reneged. Klein & Wilson arbitrated the case against one of the largest law firms in California and recovered every penny requested in the arbitration award. Klein & Wilson then had to proceed to superior court to enforce the judgment and did so successfully. When the defendant filed for bankruptcy, Klein & Wilson filed an action against the defendant's wife, after discovering the existence of a sham divorce. After chasing the principal through arbitration, the superior court, bankruptcy court, and ultimately chasing the principal's wife, Klein & Wilson was able to get this case settled on a favorable basis for the client.
Sullivan v. Lone Eagle Enterprises, LLC
$500,000
Klein & Wilson represented a client in a complex real estate partnership dispute. Within a few weeks of taking over the matter for the client and after taking a single deposition, Klein & Wilson achieved a $500,000 settlement for its client.
Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
$500,000
Klein & Wilson represented the former chief executive officer of a major corporation. The major corporation had failed to live up to numerous provisions of a post-employment agreement. After three days of arbitration, the defendant agreed to pay all the money Klein & Wilson's client requested, totaling over $500,000.
Wesley v. Kifton
$500,000
In this construction defect case, Mr. Wilson sued some of the largest developers in California, including Jack Nicklaus (the golfer) and Watt Industries. Mr. Wilson's clients purchased a large residential lot on a Jack Nicklaus golf course and, soon after the purchase, the lot was destroyed by a flood. All the defendants denied liability, and Mr. Nicklaus even threatened Mr. Wilson with a malicious prosecution action. After Mr. Wilson presented compelling evidence that the lot was defective, the defendants settled by paying approximately $500,000.
STM Networks, Inc. v. Clay
$485,100 plus interest
Klein & Wilson's client, STM Networks, Inc., is a technology company that provides satellite services throughout the world. When the defendant did not pay for a delivery of equipment to South America, Klein & Wilson brought an action on behalf of its client and the action was removed to federal court. The case was tried before a jury and the unanimous jury delivered a verdict for Klein & Wilson's client for the full amount requested and rejected claimed offsets of $3 million. A unanimous court of appeals panel affirmed the verdict on the grounds set forth in Klein & Wilson's appellate brief.
Doe v. Roe Mall (Case Confidential)
$290,000
In 2000, Klein & Wilson represented a 37-year-old man who slipped and fell in a shopping mall. The man suffered a severely broken leg, two surgeries, and a disputed loss of wages. The case was settled prior to trial for $290,000.
Wages v. Santri Insurance Brokers, et al.
$280,000
Klein & Wilson represented a general contractor whose subcontractor provided proof that the general contractor was covered under the subcontractor's policy as an additional insured. When a construction accident occurred, the subcontractor's insurance company refused to pay the client's loss, alleging it was not covered because the subcontractor misrepresented facts in the insurance policy application. Klein & Wilson pursued a claim against the subcontractor's insurance broker and various insurance carriers. Klein & Wilson recovered almost $100,000 from the insurance carriers and obtained a judgment against the broker for $213,000, representing the entire loss the client sustained.
Business Center Drive Partners, L.P. v. BioGentec Corporation, et al.
$260,000
BioGentec was a landlord's worst nightmare. The company was habitually late on rent and repeatedly made commitments it did not keep. The landlord, Klein & Wilson's client, refused to renew the lease and, at that point, the landlord's nightmare only got worse. BioGentec held over and took advantage of every procedural opportunity to delay eviction. As a result of Klein & Wilson's very aggressive litigation tactics, Klein & Wilson successfully evicted BioGentec and then won a substantial monetary judgment against BioGentec for back rent and attorneys' fees. Although BioGentec did not voluntarily pay the judgment, Klein & Wilson convinced the court to find the principal of BioGentec in contempt of court for failing to turn over assets and almost all of the outstanding judgment was recovered when the judge threatened to throw the principal in jail. This was an extremely satisfying result.
Breton v. Midland TME
$250,000
In a construction dispute, Mr. Klein represented a construction company for collection of its contract account and foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. The defendants alleged construction defect and a variety of other defenses, including some issues never before considered by a California court. Mr. Klein recovered over $250,000 for the construction company and won the right for his client to foreclose on its mechanic's lien.
Sweeney v. York
$200,000
Klein & Wilson represented a healthy and spry octogenarian who was sitting at a bus stop when, as a result of a defective intersection, a car crashed into her, causing her serious injuries. Since the driver of the car had minimal insurance, Klein & Wilson was forced to look for other responsible parties. Klein & Wilson sued the developer and the city, and received a prompt settlement exceeding $200,000 on behalf of its client.
MacPherson v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
$200,000
In 1987, Mr. Klein sued Wall Street securities firm Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation ("DLJ") on behalf of an investor whose account was wrongfully liquidated by the securities company. DLJ countersued the investor for over $1 million, alleging securities fraud and a variety of other causes of action. Mr. Klein received summary judgment on most of the security company's causes of action and, at trial, received a defense verdict on DLJ's remaining causes of action. The jury awarded the investor approximately $200,000, representing the value of the wrongfully liquidated account.
Masonry Mechanics v. Breton Construction
$200,000
Mr. Wilson represented Breton Construction in this construction defect and breach of contract action. Masonry Mechanics sued Breton Construction for several hundred thousand dollars for nonpayment of its work. Mr. Wilson proved that Breton Construction refused to pay for the work because it was defective. Moreover, Mr. Wilson proved that Masonry Mechanics caused Breton Construction to suffer approximately $200,000 in delay damages. At arbitration, the court awarded Masonry Mechanics nothing and awarded Mr. Wilson's client approximately $200,000.
Turley v. Steaven Jones Development
$200,000
Klein & Wilson's client broke her wrist after tripping over stairs which were not constructed pursuant to California Building Code requirements. Defendants vehemently denied liability and refused to pay anything. At arbitration, Klein & Wilson's client was awarded almost $200,000.
Tropicale Foods, Inc. v. Cisneros
$127,000
Klein & Wilson represented an ice cream manufacturer against a former distributor to recover money for unpaid products and unfair competition. The case settled on the day of defendant's deposition, with the defendant paying for all of the unpaid products, plus an additional $20,000 in damages.
Wilson v. Jefferson Hotel
$115,000
Klein & Wilson represented plaintiff in an action against the world famous Jefferson Hotel in Washington, D.C. Klein & Wilson's client had one of her fingers partially amputated when a defective window fell on it. The hotel denied liability. Klein & Wilson obtained a videotape reenacting the accident, proving the window malfunctioned. The hotel refused to pay anything. At arbitration, Klein & Wilson's client recovered $115,000.
Valdez v. Rico
$90,000
In 2003, Klein & Wilson won a summary judgment in a mechanic's lien case, recovering $90,000 for his client. Klein & Wilson also persuaded the court to order defendants' property sold to satisfy the judgment.
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. MTDS, Inc.
$15,000
One of the largest financial institutions in the world sued Klein & Wilson's client for $1 million it claimed was owed. As a result of bookkeeping errors, Klein & Wilson's client admittedly lost the $1 million of plaintiff's money. Klein & Wilson was able to convince the plaintiff to take less than $0.75 on the dollar of the amounts owed and the client's insurance carrier to pay the balance owed, except for the client's deductible of $15,000. Accordingly, on a loss of over $1 million, the client paid only $15,000.
Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC v. The Ezralow Company, LLC, et al.
Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC, etc., et al. v. City of Monterey Park, et al.
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented a general contractor who was retained to remediate a SuperFund site. Plaintiffs claimed Klein & Wilson's client interfered with the development of the site, causing $20 million of damages. Klein & Wilson persuaded plaintiffs that their claims had significant defects and settled the case for $700,000.
Newman v. Roth
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented a senior citizen whose landlords were trying to evict her from an apartment she had rented for over 50 years. Klein & Wilson's client's rent was subject to a local rent control ordinance. While the landlords alleged they wanted to evict Klein & Wilson's client to move in a family member, it appeared the landlords simply wanted her to leave so they could increase the rent. The landlords also failed to adequately maintain the apartment. Rather than waiting for the client to receive another notice to quit, Klein & Wilson pursued a preemptive lawsuit to prevent further harassment and to obtain an order requiring the landlords to make necessary repairs. Klein & Wilson settled the case by obtaining a long term lease for the client which included a waiver of the landlords' right to evict the client in order to move in the landlords' family members. The landlord also agreed to make all necessary repairs.
Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented some of the largest companies in the world in an action against a toxic polluter to fund a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency. The toxic polluter said it could not pay what it owed because it was out of business and had no assets. Klein & Wilson uncovered evidence that defendant's president used the company like a personal piggy bank. Therefore, Klein & Wilson pursued the president under an alter ego theory. These tactics resulted in a substantial settlement for Klein & Wilson's clients. Accordingly, in a case where the target defendant had no money, Klein & Wilson still recovered almost every penny owed
Tropicale Foods, Inc. (d.b.a. Helados Mexico) v. Helados La Mexicana, Inc.
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson filed an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition to protect its client's trademark "Helados Mexico." Klein & Wilson settled the case by persuading the defendant to stop selling products with the name "Helados La Mexicana" on them and to change its corporate name.
Roanja Planning, d.b.a. Westside Door & Moulding v. Farzad Halavi, d.b.a. Halco Construction, et al.
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson's client was sued for fraud, restraint of trade, and unfair business practices arising out of a failed construction project. Klein & Wilson filed a demurrer challenging plaintiffs' claims. Right before the hearing, plaintiffs dismissed Klein & Wilson's client from the case with prejudice.
Doe v. Roe (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson was hired to represent the husband of a wife who tragically caused an automobile accident resulting in a death and other serious personal injuries. The plaintiffs threatened to sue the husband in order to execute on his assets to pay their damages. Klein & Wilson persuaded plaintiffs to accept the couple's insurance policy limits and not file an action against the husband.
Doe v. Doe Fortune 500 Company (Case Confidential)
(Confidential Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented one of the pioneers in the radio industry against a defendant who acquired the pioneer's company. As part of the acquisition agreement, Klein & Wilson's client was entitled to proceeds in the event the company was "flipped" within two years. Despite the fact the document was drafted by two major law firms, it was poorly crafted. Nevertheless, Klein & Wilson was able to obtain a settlement of $1.5 million from the defendant, despite the ambiguous contract language. Counsel for defendant advised Klein & Wilson that it was only Klein & Wilson's novel theories that convinced the defendant to pay any money.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)
In 2006, Klein & Wilson represented a tenant who leased a large building for many years. The lease required the tenant to maintain the building. Upon termination of the tenancy, the landlord demanded $765,000 to repair the premises. Klein & Wilson persuaded the landlord that many of its demands were unreasonable and to accept only $350,000 to resolve the dispute.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)
Plaintiff sued Klein & Wilson's client, a general contractor, for $12 million alleging that a 225,000 square foot concrete slab was installed defectively. Klein & Wilson tendered the defense of the case to the client's carrier who rejected the tender. Klein & Wilson threatened to file a bad faith claim against its client's insurance carrier. While Klein & Wilson was negotiating with the insurance carrier, it conducted discovery and proved, through expert testimony and scientific evidence, that the concrete slab was not defective and needed no repairs. Klein & Wilson resolved the case at mediation with its client paying nothing and the plaintiff receiving a nominal amount from the client's insurance carrier.
Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Peña
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented the former employee of a large ice cream company which alleged that Klein & Wilson's client took the employer's customer list and formed a competing company. By the time the employee retained Klein & Wilson, the court had already entered a preliminary injunction against the employee, preventing him from soliciting business from over 700 customers in California. Klein & Wilson immediately filed and won a motion to disqualify the employer's counsel because it had previously represented the employee in another case, creating a conflict of interest. Klein & Wilson then conducted discovery which persuaded the employer's new attorney the case had no merit. Subsequently, Klein & Wilson negotiated a settlement whereby its client paid nothing, the employer dismissed the case with prejudice, and the injunction was dissolved.
Dwight v. Clark, et al.
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented a major manufacturer of trailer products in a tragic case where a woman was severely brain damaged in a trailer decoupled from an oncoming truck. Klein & Wilson's client paid the smallest settlement in the case, with the exception of the truck driver who was substantially under-insured and had no assets to pay judgment.
James v. Hill
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented a Fortune 500 company whose employee caused a serious automobile accident, severely injuring two people. Both plaintiffs had multiple injuries requiring several surgeries. Both plaintiffs alleged permanent injuries and damaged totaling $8.7 million. Recognizing this was a liability case, Klein & Wilson focused its efforts on evaluating the nature and extent of plaintiffs' injuries and getting the case settled as quickly and economically as possible. Klein & Wilson obtained videotapes of plaintiffs engaging in activities which were inconsistent with their alleged injuries. Klein & Wilson also conducted a thorough review of plaintiffs' medical histories to show that some of plaintiffs' complaints resulted from preexisting conditions. Then, Klein & Wilson confronted plaintiffs with this evidence at videotaped depositions, catching plaintiffs in further inconsistencies. Klein & Wilson presented a devastating multimedia presentation showing how plaintiffs' testimony was inconsistent with their medical records and videotapes. The mediation resulted in a settlement far less than plaintiffs' original $8.7 million demand.
Doe v. Doe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)
Mr. Wilson represented Doe Corporation, who was sued by an individual claiming Doe Corporation entered into a written agreement providing the individual a 30 percent interest in the company as well as guaranteeing employment for five years at $100,000 per year. Plaintiff's settlement demand was $5 million. Doe Corporation hired Mr. Wilson just two weeks before the case was set for trial. Mr. Wilson persuaded the trial court to continue the trial. Mr. Wilson then took plaintiff's deposition by videotape, during which Mr. Wilson impeached plaintiff many times. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson persuaded plaintiff to attend a mediation. At the mediation, Mr. Wilson used a multimedia presentation showing how badly plaintiff had been impeached. The case settled at mediation for $60,000.
Siegel v. Dyer
(Settlement)
Plaintiff sued Klein & Wilson's client, alleging she failed to disclose fungus when she sold her property to plaintiff. The case was troubling because the parties signed an amendment to the agreement in which the client disclosed the fungus, plaintiff agreed to take responsibility for it, and plaintiff received a credit for the condition. Due to this fact, Klein & Wilson filed a cross-complaint alleging plaintiff was breaching the terms of the contract. On the eve of the hearing on a motion for summary judgment Klein & Wilson filed, plaintiff agreed to pay Klein & Wilson's client $60,000 for having to defend a frivolous lawsuit.
Ambassador Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Wei-Chuan Investments
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson was retained only after the client suffered a judgment approaching $70 million. Following reversal of the trial court's ruling, Klein & Wilson was able to have the judgment reduced by tens of millions of dollars.
Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented the manufacturer of a heater in an explosion case where plaintiff was seriously burned. Following aggressive defense tactics, Klein & Wilson was successful in obtaining a settlement in the amount of $60,000.
Powlison v. General Motors
(Settlement)
This case arose out of a serious single truck and trailer accident in Northern California. The Powlisons' General Motors Suburban left the road as a result of losing control of a swaying trailer. One of the Powlison children died and the rest of the family was seriously injured. Klein & Wilson represented the manufacturer of the brake actuator and the anti-sway devices on the trailer. Klein & Wilson settled this case on behalf of its client for $25,000, substantially less than any of the other settling defendants.
Cohen-Nazar, etc., et al. v. Friendly Adult Day Healthcare Center, Inc., et al.
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson's client purchased commercial property and soon thereafter, a lis pendens was recorded against it by claimants who alleged they had in interest in it based on a dispute they had with the previous owner. Klein & Wilson filed a complaint-in-intervention and then won a motion to expunge the lis pendens, clearing the title to the property.
Peake v. Miller
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented a prominent artist who was accused of infringing on copyrighted photographs found in the book entitled, Surfing San Onofre to Point Dume 1936 - 1942 Photographs by Don James. The alleged owner of the copyright sought thousands of dollars in damages. Klein & Wilson cast doubt on the alleged infringement and settled the case for a fraction of the demand.
Krogh v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
(Confidential Settlement)
In this case, two investors sued their securities broker for wrongful liquidation of their accounts. After completion of discovery, Mr. Klein received a substantial settlement on behalf of his clients, the amount of which is confidential.
LDM v. Unisys Corporation
(Confidential Settlement)
In 1986, Mr. Klein negotiated a settlement for his client with Unisys Corporation. At the time, this was the largest settlement ever paid by Unisys Corporation in a non-securities case. The settlement amount is confidential.
Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. State Farm
(Confidential Settlement)
In conjunction with the construction defect case referenced above, Klein & Wilson filed a first party claim against State Farm Insurance. The claim was rejected, and Klein & Wilson filed an action for bad faith against the insurance company. Before any depositions were taken, State Farm settled by paying the association's entire claim. The settlement amount is confidential.
Singh v. Royal Maccabees Insurance Company
(Confidential Settlement)
Klein & Wilson's client was a prominent anesthesiologist. Following a traffic accident, he suffered carpal tunnel syndrome, for which the insurance company paid partial disability benefits. However, after releasing the insurance company from any claim for partial disability, the client found he was still not improving. The insurance company refused to pay any further benefits, and Klein & Wilson sued on behalf of the client. After getting the case ready for trial, the insurance company settled for a confidential amount.
Gutierrez v. Norris Cylinder
(Settlement)
This case involved a nationally reported tragic accident where two Metrorail workers were seriously burned and another worker seriously injured when an acetylene tank manufactured by Klein & Wilson's client exploded. Klein & Wilson retained the world's leading expert on acetylene cylinders and presented a case indicating that other defendants and the plaintiffs themselves were primarily responsible for the accident. Recognizing damages could easily exceed $20 million, Klein & Wilson conducted mock trials and learned that ordinary jurors would hold other defendants responsible for the accident, not Klein & Wilson's client. Armed with these mock trials, Klein & Wilson entered into an imaginative "Mary Carter" settlement with plaintiffs, which allowed Klein & Wilson's client to settle the case for less than the costs of defense. The remaining defendants went to trial and ultimately paid plaintiffs approximately $15 million.
Hernandez v. Clearing Manufacturing Company
(Dismissal)
In this case, plaintiff's hand was amputated in an industrial accident. Plaintiff sued Klein & Wilson's client, who had owned the allegedly defective equipment for over 50 years. Klein & Wilson received summary judgment on behalf of its client, resulting in a dismissal of the case.
Garcia v. Richardson's R.V. Center, Inc.
(Dismissal)
In this case, plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic in an accident involving a recreational vehicle. Klein & Wilson defended the manufacturer of one of the components of the recreational vehicle involved in the accident. As a result of its trial tactics, the case was dismissed against Klein & Wilson's client without any payment.
Maah v. Marlon Manor Apartments
(Dismissal)
Klein & Wilson represented a major manufacturer of plumbing equipment in a case where the plaintiff claimed he had been severely burned by scalding hot water. After Klein & Wilson filed a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss Klein & Wilson's client with an agreement to waive all defense costs and claims of malicious prosecution.
Price Pfister, Inc. v. Metaldyne Corporation
(Defense Judgment)
Price Pfister, Inc. ("Price Pfister"), a subsidiary of Black & Decker Corporation, sued Klein & Wilson's clients alleging they were responsible to defend all asbestos lawsuits filed against Price Pfister. Price Pfister sought reimbursement of $1 million it incurred defending asbestos cases to date and an order requiring Klein & Wilson's clients to pay all of Price Pfister's future legal bills. Klein & Wilson tried the case against Edward Hugo of Brydon, Hugo & Parker who claims to be one of the most successful trial attorneys in Northern California. Klein & Wilson proved that Price Pfister's claims had no merit and obtained a defense judgment.
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
(Defense Judgment)
Klein & Wilson represented defendant Ruben Gutierrez in an action filed by Ruben's brother Ignacio. Ignacio was represented by Downey Brand, Sacramento's largest law firm. Ruben and Ignacio had a successful ice cream manufacturing business. In order to meet customers' demands, Ruben and Ignacio decided to purchase a building in which to conduct their manufacturing operation. The bank required a partnership agreement before it would lend money to purchase the building. Accordingly, the brothers signed a partnership agreement which contained a ten-year covenant not to compete which was triggered if one of the brothers voluntarily withdrew from the partnership. Approximately two weeks after the brothers signed the partnership agreement, they decided to terminate their partnership over differences which had been festering for years. The brothers then signed a dissolution agreement which did not contain a covenant not to compete but did contain an integration clause stating the dissolution agreement contained all the terms of the brothers' final agreement. Ignacio paid Ruben $1 million for the business. After Ruben started a new business which threatened Ignacio's success, Ignacio sued Ruben for damages and an injunction, alleging that Ruben withdrew from the partnership and was therefore bound by the covenant not to compete. Klein & Wilson filed several motions to end the lawsuit on the grounds the dissolution agreement was integrated and the parol evidence rule barred a jury from considering the covenant not to compete in the partnership agreement. The trial court denied the motions and the case proceeded to trial. The jury awarded Ignacio significant damages, and the trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Ruben from manufacturing and selling ice cream in California. Klein & Wilson appealed the judgment, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal agreed with Klein & Wilson's analysis of the parol evidence rule and ordered the trial court to enter judgment for Ruben and vacate the injunction.
Trosky, et al. v. Brutocao, et al.
(Defense Verdict)
For years, Klein & Wilson's clients, the Brutocaos, lived in harmony with their neighbor, who was a frequent guest at their home. When runoff from the neighbor's property invaded the Brutocaos' property, the neighbor gave an easement to the Brutocaos over a portion of her land so the Brutocaos could solve drainage problems and incorporate part of the easement area into their backyard. When the Troskys purchased the neighbor's house, they were aware of the easement, but immediately took steps to cancel it. Klein & Wilson successfully knocked out the most serious claims by way of motion and on the eve of trial, the Troskys entered into an extremely favorable settlement for the Brutocaos, resulting in the Troskys ceding even more land to the Brutocaos.
JAG Industries v. Brutoco Development
(Defense Verdict)
In this case, Mr. Klein represented a land developer accused of breaching an option to buy a particular property. Mr. Klein moved for a defense verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff's presentation of evidence. The motion was granted, resulting in a judgment for Mr. Klein's client.
Overton, Lyman & Prince v. John Doe
(Defense Verdict)
In 1986, Mr. Klein represented a client of Overton, Lyman & Prince, a prominent law firm, who contested any obligation to pay further attorneys' fees to the Overton firm. At trial, the court determined the Overton firm had not carried its burden in proving fees were owed and, upon Mr. Klein's motion, the court granted a defense verdict in favor of Mr. Klein's client.
Saad v. Gilchrist
(Defense Verdict)
In this action, Mr. Klein represented the former president of a software company on a breach of guarantee case. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, Mr. Klein moved for a defense verdict. Judgment was entered on behalf of Mr. Klein's client without his client being required to present further evidence. Costs were awarded to Mr. Klein's client.
Kessler v. Horan
(Plaintiff Verdict)
In this attorney malpractice action, Klein & Wilson represented an investor who purchased real estate in Newport Beach. The attorney who represented Klein & Wilson's client in the transaction botched the transaction so badly, the client's title to the property was unclear, which resulted in several other lawsuits being filed. The attorney denied all liability and the case went to trial. The attorney was represented by one of Orange County's most experienced trial attorneys. Nevertheless, Klein & Wilson prevailed at trial and recovered all the damages requested.
Pellizzon v. Fidelity Investments
(Plaintiff Verdict)
In this case, Mr. Klein represented a securities investor whose orders were not executed properly. Mr. Klein prevailed in arbitration and the client was awarded all the money he requested.
Burgess v. Thermador
(Settlement)
Klein & Wilson represented a large corporation whose deliveryman accidentally killed a motorcyclist in a traffic accident. After thorough investigation, Klein & Wilson determined there was no substantial defense and little comparative negligence on the plaintiff's part. Rather than waste money on legal fees and costs, Klein & Wilson recommended an early settlement conference and the case was settled on an amicable and fair basis.
People v. Blansett
(Not Guilty Verdict)
In a case where Mr. Klein was asked to represent a relative of an established commercial client, Mr. Klein defended a young man wrongfully accused of dealing narcotics. Mr. Klein proved the drug dealer was the client's roommate, not the client himself. Although the rate of acquittal in Orange County criminal actions is less than 5%, Mr. Klein obtained a verdict of not guilty.
State of California v. Diess, et al. (El Morro Mobilehome Park)
Klein & Wilson represented virtually all the residents of the El Morro Village Mobilehome Park in their effort to avoid eviction by the State of California. The matter was an extremely high profile case involving some of the leading citizens of Orange County, the California legislature, and the Governor of California. The residents of El Morro Village had lived there for many years and the site had been a mobilehome park for approximately 75 years. The State of California, and very powerful forces within the State, wanted the mobilehome park closed and took every step possible to force the residents to leave at the conclusion of their leases. Klein & Wilson was asked to delay eviction as long as possible to allow the residents' lobbyist to seek a lease extension. Klein & Wilson was able to avoid the immediate eviction of the residents and when the legislative option failed, Klein & Wilson was able to negotiate a deal with the State allowing hundreds of residents to remain for 14 months and leave their mobilehomes in place without paying for the costs of removal. Klein & Wilson understands it ultimately cost the State millions of dollars in lost revenue and removal costs to return the site to its original condition. While Klein & Wilson was unable to stop the inevitable process of eviction, Klein & Wilson received a standing ovation from residents who came to hear a losing motion for a preliminary injunction against the State. Klein & Wilson received thank you notes from many of the residents which are cherished to this day.
Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. Chesley Construction, Inc.
A general contractor threatened to sue Klein & Wilson's client, a homeowners' association, for unpaid construction fees. Following Klein & Wilson's advice, the homeowners' association sued first. At the binding arbitration, the association argued that not only had it paid the contractor in full, it had overpaid the contractor for its work. Before the arbitration, the association offered to settle the case for a "walk-away," with both sides surrendering their competing claims against each other. The contractor refused and insisted on pressing its cross-complaint. The case proceeded to arbitration. Using a multimedia presentation, Klein & Wilson convinced the arbitrator the association was owed every penny it requested, and the arbitrator awarded the contractor nothing. The arbitrator later told the local bar association Klein & Wilson's multimedia presentation was the most effective trial presentation he had ever seen.