FULLERTON, CA
Business Lawyer at FULLERTON, CA
Practice Areas: Business, Real Estate ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Settled for $355,000.
Chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary proceeding claiming that $20 million was owed to bankruptcy estate in complex case involving multiple jurisdictions. Business owner was represented by Mr. Luu who ... obtained favorable outcome for client.
OUTCOME: Judgment for Entrepreneur
Entrepreneur is in the business of buying and selling vehicles available domestically, but difficult to find overseas. Auto Dealer entered into a written agreement for the delivery of four vehicles to ... be shipped overseas to Entrepreneur. While Entrepreneur paid in full for the purchase of the four vehicles, Auto Dealer failed to deliver the vehicles as promised. Suit was filed on behalf of Entrepreneur for breach of contract.
OUTCOME: Settled at mediation.
Real estate agent was employed by an agency to set up a REO (Real Estate Owned) team. Agent was inexperienced and sought the services of a Coach to perform the task of training and coaching the REO te ... am. After Coach performed by holding classes and guiding Agent through the process of setting up the team, Agent reneged on their agreement for payment of services. Agent attempted to renegotiate the terms of Coach's compensation, but negotiations were unsuccessful. Ultimately Agent refused to pay Coach for the services rendered and Mr. Luu brought a lawsuit against Agent for Coach's fees.
OUTCOME: Stipulated judgment in favor of Business Owner for the entire balance owed by Distributor
Business owner placed order for Szechuan geoduck clams. After paying for the clams, the distributor delivered less than 10% of the order. Distributor then failed to deliver on the remainder and refus ... ed to refund the balance of the money paid despite many requests. Mr. Luu represented the business owner in the lawsuit.
OUTCOME: Successfully defended landlord by obtaining a defense verdict. The jury deliberated for approximately 30 minutes and voted 12-0 for defense.
Landlord sued Tenant in small claims court for damages to rented single family home. On the date of the small claims trial, Tenant served Landlord with a complaint. Tenant, 40s, an attorney and inves ... tment broker, alleged that on March 16, 2007, he returned to his rental house in San Gabriel, entering through the backyard. He allegedly tripped and fell over an extension cord for a water pump, which was draining water out of a swimming pool. Tenant sued the rental house's owners for premises liability (negligent repair and maintenance, failure to warn, dangerous condition). Tenant claimed that someone had moved the water hose and extension cord to the right of the pool without his knowledge, causing him to trip over it as he walked along the path to his backdoor. He asserted that the Owner should have placed warning cones to alert him of the tripping hazard, and that the area had inadequate lighting, which contributed to the accident. The defense responded that plaintiff knew the pool was being drained and even assisted the owner with setting up the equipment. Counsel further contended that the water pump and extension cord ran through the right side of the pool because that was where the outlet was located. The defense further alleged that the backyard area had a sensor that controlled lighting, which was functioning at the time of the accident. Counsel also claimed that the trip and fall could not have happened as described by Tenant since he claimed that he tripped over the cord yet fell backward. Plaintiff's treating orthopedist allegedly opined that the he is a candidate for arthroscopic surgery to repair his right shoulder. He claimed residual pain and discomfort in the shoulder, as well as his neck, back and knees. Tenant lamented that he could no longer play basketball, work out or play with his children. The plaintiff asked the jury for up to $70,000 for past and future medical costs, plus unspecified damages for past and future pain and suffering. The defense contended that plaintiff did not require surgery, and disputed that the accident had anything to do with his alleged injuries. Counsel claimed that if plaintiff had tripped and fallen in the matter he described, he would have sought medical treatment on the night of the alleged accident.
OUTCOME: While Plaintiff claimed $620,090 in future medical treatment, the verdict/judgment amount was successfully reduced for client restaurant to $48,000.
On November 12, 2006, plaintiff was a patron of a restaurant in Beverly Hills, California. While a patron at the restaurant, plaintiff was cut on his heel by a bottle that broke when a restaurant emplo ... yee accidentally knocked the bottle off a dining table.
OUTCOME: Successfully defended dealership client by obtaining defense verdict.
Defendant FV and decedent AH were long-time friends. Both defendant and decedent were mechanics employed by defendant FW. Defendant IV, who was not related to defendant FV, was the owner of a modified, ... or “souped up” 2004 Mustang Cobra. Defendant FV told defendant IV that if he ever needed any work done on the Mustang, to bring it into defendant FW, which defendant IV did. On October 18, 2006, defendant FV wanted to take the Mustang out for a “test drive” to diagnose a rear-end noise problem that defendant IV complained of. Defendant FV needed someone to go with him and asked a couple of employees if they wanted to go along. Decedent, who had “clocked out” for the day, agreed to go along. Defendant FV and decedent drove down Paramount Blvd in Long Beach, California. During the test drive, defendant FV drove through a “drive-through” dairy/liquor store and bought a six-pack of beer. A witness, an employee of defendant FW who testified for plaintiffs, said that she heard defendant FV ask decedent before they left if he wanted to go with him to pick up some beer. The witness did not appear at trial, but her testimony was provided through her previous deposition. There was no evidence that the beer was consumed. After driving through the store, defendant FV drove the Mustang in excess of the speed limit. There were various estimates of his speed. Witnesses testified that they saw him weaving through traffic and driving quite fast, nearly colliding with the rear of a truck at one point. Defendant FV lost control of the Mustang and struck a telephone pole at the intersection of 63rd Street and Paramount, resulting in the death of decedent. Defendant FV pled nolo contendere to a felony charge of vehicular manslaughter. The jury was advised accordingly. Plaintiffs AH, Jr., age 2, and MDH, age 5, contended that defendant FV was in the course and scope of his employment with defendant FW at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs further contended that decedent was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time. Defendants argued that defendant FV was in the course and scope of his employment with defendant FW, but that, even if he was, decedent, who was acting to help a co-employee and his employer by going along for a test drive, was in the course and scope of his employment. Defendants further argued that any remedy decedent's heirs had, was workers' compensation. Defendants contended that merely because decedent had “clocked out” did not mean that he was no longer employed. In fact, evidence supported the claim that decedent did not intend to leave, including the fact that his tool box was still open and had not been put away, as is the habit of the mechanics, who purchase their own tools.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
