Suriya Systems, Inc., et al. v. Quadrant 4 System Corp., et al., Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H042023:
Unpublished decision filed February 24, 2017. Obtained affirmance of trial court dismissal and subsequent motion for reconsideration of Appellants’ contract claims based on the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The forum selection clause provided for litigation of the parties’ claim in New Jersey. Suriya’s, et al’s petitions for rehearing, publication, and review by the California Supreme Court were subsequently denied.
Click here for Opinion.
Click here for Respondent’s Brief.

Zavieh v. Superior Court of Alameda County (RWW Properties, LLC Real Party in Interest):
First District Court of Appeal, Div. 5, Case No. A146809. Order summarily denying Petition for Writ of Mandate or other Extraordinary relief filed March 15, 2016. Obtained denial after filing court-requested opposition to the Petition and Petitioner's Emergency Papers regarding the trial court's order expunging Petitioner's lis pendens recorded against property that Real Party in Interest RWW previously purchased at a trustee's sale. At Court's request analyzed proper standard of review for appellate court to use when trial has resulted in judgment against petitioner on real estate issues at stake in lis pendens proceedings and pointed out inadequate record provided in writ proceedings. In order denying Writ Petition, First District held both that Petitioner had failed to provide an adequate record for the Petition and that Petitioner had failed to meet her burden under the applicable standard of review. The First District also denied Petitioner's Emergency Petition.
Click here for Order.
Click here for Opposition.

Halliday McCann v. JP Morgan Chase, et al., First District Court of Appeal, Div. 2, Case No. A138257:
Settled before oral argument. Represented Appellant in action against successor in interest to lender on refinance of mortgage following lender's solicitations and representations. When refinanced loan's interest rates reset, appellant further informed by Respondent successor that further refinance was unavailable but loan modification was available, and that it was a good thing that Chase was not participating in government program, so that there was no loan amount limit in in place. Four loan modification applications later, Chase denied Appellant's loan modification on the grounds that the federal program ceiling limited how much they could offer. Meanwhile Chase had proceeded with foreclosure on Appellant's home.

Appellant filed suit and obtained a temporary restraining order against further foreclosure activity. When Chase proceeded with sale after being served with TRO, Appellant moved for contempt, Chase's counsel stipulated to no further foreclosure activity pending the litigation. The trial court sustained Chase's demurrer without leave to amend, first as to Appellant's claims for negligence and fraud arising out of the loan modification process, then sustained Chase's demurrer without leave to amend as to Appellant's claims for Chase's violations of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code secs 1788 et seq.). Shortly after Appellant's case was dismissed, the First District, Div. 2 published a decision, Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, which allowed claims for negligent representation, negligence, and promissory estoppel in connection with a loan modification involving a construction loan, but which relied on authorities involving homeowners, not builders.

After briefing, notifying the appellate court of subsequent authority supporting Appellant's case, and instructions from the First District informing counsel that at oral argument they wanted to discuss Jolley and the later cited authority, settlement discussions ensued and concluded a few days before oral argument. Terms of the settlement are confidential.
Click here for Appellant's Opening Brief.
Click here for Appellant's Reply Brief.

In re Marriage of Buda (Bailey) and Bailey, First District Court of Appeal, Division 3, Case No. A136564:
Unpublished decision filed November 18, 2014. Obtained reversal of judgment denying Epstein reimbursements and other reimbursements under the parties’ premarital agreement. The trial court failed to consider the principles underlying Epstein claims and the requirement for equal division of the community estate under Family Code § 2550 when my client presented the trial court with alternative means for doing so. Obtained affirmance of ex-husband’s cross-appeal seeking community interests in: the parties’ family residence; my client’s commercial property purchased via a § 1031 exchange with her separate property interest in commercial real estate, whether or not based on the parties’ premarital agreement; and the proceeds of my client’s personal injury settlement, not including lost wages.
Click here to review the Opinion.

Kazenercom Too, et al. v. Turan Petroleum, Inc., et al., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 09-56329, 10-55458:
Memorandum Decision filed December 27, 2011: Obtained reversal of District Court judgment of dismissal for clients under FRCP 12(e), 12(b)(6) of claims for relief under RICO and federal securities fraud, with supplemental state law claims. 

Mitchell v. Superior Court, First District Court of Appeal, Div. 3, Case No. A130238: 
Order denying Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition filed January 6, 2011. Represented Real Party in Interest in domestic violence/child custody matter. 

Grima (Burford) v. Superior Court, First District Court of Appeal, Div. 1, Case No. A126852: 
Order denying Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition filed December 29, 2009. Represented Real Party in Interest in child custody "move away" case. Following an Answer on behalf of Real Party, the California Supreme Court denied review February 10, 2010, Case No. S179222.

Johnson v. Gebhardt, First District Court of Appeal, Div. 5, Case No. A121548: 
Appeal dismissed with prejudice October 3, 2008. Represented Respondent in companion appeal to Case No. A120856 and filed Opposition to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas regarding grandparent visitation. Dismissed as part of settlement that provided Respondent with greater share of custody of his children.

Johnson v. Superior Court, First District Court of Appeal, Div. 5, Case No. A120856:
Order denying petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition filed June 5, 2008. Represented Real Party in Interest in opposing writ petition regarding grandparent supervision.

Padda v. Hamedi-Fard, et al., unpublished opinion filed December 27, 2007, First District Court of Appeal, Div. 3, Case No. A113703:
Obtained affirmance of judgment awarding damages and attorneys' fees to owner of service station for breaching contractual and tortious duties in installing new underground storage tanks.

Gotelli v. Latteri, First District Court of Appeal Case No. A108378, unpublished decision filed October 12, 2006:
Obtained reversal of judgment on cross-appeal of judgment denying award of child support arrearages on grounds that release of mother's child support claims by mother's agent did not waive the mother's child support claims where father failed to detrimentally rely on release and affirmance of appeal of judgment holding that father failed to pay child support arrearages and that litigation privilege applied to recording of child support judgment lien.

Oakley v. Oakley, First District Court of Appeal, Case No. A110180, unpublished opinion filed August 9, 2006:
Represented respondent and obtained affirmance of trial court judgment holding against attempt by appellant to impose a resulting trust on respondent's real property.

In re Marriage of MacIntyre, First District Court of Appeal Case No. 109304, unpublished decision filed July 7, 2006:
Represented respondent and obtained affirmance of imposition of Family Code section 271 sanctions in property division proceedings.

Cearley, et al. v. Azizian, et al., First District Court of Appeal, Case No. A107231, unpublished opinion filed April 19, 2006:
Obtained a reversal of a jury verdict for compensatory and punitive damages that followed a thirteen (13) day trial involving a dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of commercial real estate. The appellate court reversed the judgment based on violation of the parol evidence rule and also held that respondents' recovery of damages for lost wages was improper.

Pratt v. Lloyd, First District Court of Appeal Case No. A108164, 1st District's appellate mediation program:
Obtained a favorable settlement March 2005 for appellant in dispute arising out of calculation of Epstein credits.

Valenty v. Valenty, First District Court of Appeal Case No. A096601:
Unpublished decision filed December 27, 2002: Representing respondent, obtained affirmance of trial court judgment denying appellant's motion for a share of respondent's military retirement benefits subject to McCarty v. McCarty window period. Appellant sought to recover a community property share as omitted assets and to modify spousal support.

Altura, et al. v. Shelfbond, et al., First District Court of Appeal, Case No. A094433:
Unpublished opinion filed March 25, 2002: Represented respondents and obtained affirmance of order upholding $264,000 default judgment following reconsideration of order initially granting the motion to vacate for lack of a statement of damages, on the grounds that the complaint contained sufficient notice of the amount of damages. Subsequently successfully opposed petition for review.

Altura, et al. v. Shelfbond, et al., First District Court of Appeal, Case No. A087446:
Unpublished opinion filed June 12, 2000: Obtained affirmance on behalf of respondents of trial court order denying motion to set aside $264,000 default judgment, on grounds that counsel for judgment creditor did everything possible to provide reasonable notice to defendant of complaint against it, upholding service by California Secretary of State's office.

Singh v. Sharma, First District Court of Appeal, Case No. A092081:
Unpublished opinion filed October 22, 2001: On respondent's behalf, obtained affirmance of $1.05 million default judgment.

Newcomb v. Superior Court, First District Court of Appeal Case No. A090777:
Alternative writ issued July 20, 2000: Obtained alternative writ, with which trial court later complied, ordering the trial court to vacate an order expunging lis pendens and to enter new order denying motion to expunge lis pendens in marital dissolution proceeding, on the grounds that there was not yet a final judgment that could order my client to convey her community property interest in the residence to her ex-husband in dispute about whether a transmutation of my client's community property interest in the family residence took place. Parties later settled on appeal.