Skip to main content
Gregg Adam Martin
Avvo
Pro

Gregg Martin’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Confidential

    Practice Area:
    Life Sciences & Biotechnology
    Date:
    Dec 01, 2002
    Outcome:
    7 figure recovery plus fees and costs
    Description:
    Dispute between contract research organization and pharmaceutical company over handling of a Clinical Trial
  • Brown adv. Casey

    Practice Area:
    Contracts & Agreements
    Date:
    Dec 29, 2000
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Defendant Steven Brown
    Description:
    Plaintiff accused Defendant of fraud and breach of contract in failing to honor agreements. After a multi-day bench trial, the Court found for Defendant Brown on all claims
  • Kimaz v. Robertson

    Practice Area:
    Corporate & Incorporation
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Plaintiff
    Description:
    Corporate dissolution action based upon fraud and mismanagement by controlling shareholders. Court's judgment ordered dissolution of both companies and an accounting.
  • Lacy Street Cabaret adv. Tomayo

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jan 24, 2000
    Outcome:
    Defense Verdict
    Description:
    Plaintiff was involved in fight at Defendant's premises and sued for personal injury damages based upon a assault and battery claim and theory of respondeat superior. Jury returned verdict finding no liability on Defendant's part
  • Herscu adv. Del Norte

    Practice Area:
    Partnership
    Date:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict $800,000
    Description:
    The case arose out of several joint venture partnerships involving various real estate projects in California and Alabama. My firm and I represented the defendants and cross-complainants. The trial was the culmination of over 2 years of litigation. After reducing the plaintiff's original complaint to a single cause of action for breach of a written promissory note during pre-trial proceedings, we successfully convinced the jury that the cross-defendants had not only breached the parties' various partnership agreements but, in addition, had acted fraudulently at the inception of such agreements by making false representations, false promises and concealing material facts. The jury's verdict on the cross-complaint was unanimous (12-0) on all counts and included findings that the cross-defendants had committed other wrongful acts, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and conversion. The jury spent approximately 4 hours deliberating and rendering a lengthy Special Verdict (over 100 questions) following a 2+ week trial. In addition to awarding nearly $800,000.00 in damages, the jury unanimously rejected the plaintiff's claims on the promissory note where the plaintiff was seeking to recover approximately $300,000.00 in principal and interest. We convinced the jury that no such note had ever been signed.
  • NF PARK OAKS TIC v. SARAHSOL, INC.

    Practice Area:
    Landlord & Tenant
    Outcome:
    Prevailed on Complaint and Defense of X-Complaint
    Description:
    Tenant refused to pay rent after vacating the shopping center at the end of its lease. The landlord filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid rent whereupon the tenant cross-complained claiming that the landlord had breached the parties' lease by improperly leasing an adjacent space to a direct competitor in violation of the tenant's claimed exclusive use. The tenant initially alleged six (6) separate causes of action against the landlord and $500,000 in damages plus interest and attorneys fees. After a multiple day bench trial, the trial court took the matter under submission. The trial court did not tell the parties whether it had arrived at any tentative decision; instead, the trial court requested both parties to prepare statements of decision for the trial court's consideration. Thereafter, without any guidance from the trial court, we prepared and submitted a lengthy proposed statement of decision that found for the landlord on all claims and defenses. The tenant also submitted its own statement of decision that proposed a finding in all respects in the tenant's favor. On April 5, 2010, the trial court signed the proposed statement of decision submitted on the landlord's behalf without any changes. The trial court found that not only had the landlord defeated all claims the tenant asserted against the landlord but that the landlord was entitled to recover the full amount of its rent claim plus attorneys fees and costs. A cost memorandum and fee application have been submitted to the Court.