OUTCOME: $1.6 million judgment in favor of clients
This was a business and employment case filed by our client, Erik Lugris, against his former employer, Full Swing Golf, who he also sold his business to. Lugris pursued both business and employment t...orts against Full Swing and its principals after he and his wife were unlawfully terminated from their employment and Full Swing failed to meet its contractual obligations regarding the purchase. Aggressive litigation yielded a $1.6 million dollar judgment against Full Swing Golf.
Consumer protection
Future Growth, et. al. v. Gateway Title Co., et. al.
Mar 20, 2012
OUTCOME: Jury Verdict/Judgment - $3M+
Garbacz receives $2.15 Million Jury Verdict For Fraud and Breach of Escrow Instructions.
SANTA ANA, CA - On March 20, 2012, Klinedinst attorney Greg A. Garbacz succeeded in trial involving a multi...-million dollar fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty case.
In Christian Astillero, et al., v. Gateway Title Company, et al., Mr. Garbacz represented two investors who had lost $1,250,000 in a series of six real estate loans with a company called High Park Financial Group, through its principal, Edward Showalter. After the SEC closed down High Park's Ponzi scheme, Mr. Showalter was eventually indicted, pled guilty and was sentenced for defrauding over 70 investors of over $12 million dollars. Many of these real estate investments had been transacted through the Orange County escrow office of Gateway Title Company (now doing business as Pacific Coast Title, a Fidelity National Title subsidiary).
At the instruction of High Park, the two defrauded investors had deposited their investment monies with Gateway. Then, without the investors' knowledge, Gateway had prematurely released those investment monies before the escrow conditions were satisfied, resulting in the loss of the investment in High Park's Ponzi scheme.
During the eight week jury trial, Garbacz contended that, in addition to not fulfilling the escrow instructions that had been given by their clients, Gateway's escrow officers were actually aware of the fraud, actively participated in defrauding their clients and various institutional lenders, and were themselves making undisclosed loans and investments into the Ponzi scheme for their own person gain.
During trial, the Defendants responded that Plaintiffs had not been actual escrow clients of Gateway and were owed no duty by the Gateway defendants. Gateway also argued that the plaintiffs obtained what they were entitled to when they were provided trust deeds supporting their investments.
In response, Garbacz argued that their clients never would have made the investments had Gateway disclosed all the facts, and that the trust deeds that they received on some of the properties were defective and/or worthless.
After two days of deliberations, the jury delivered a resounding verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding $2,150,000, exclusive of prejudgment interest. Interest was later awarded resulting in a judgment in excess of $3MM.
Employment and labor
Cui v. Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc.
May 26, 2011
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict
Garbacz Wins Verdict in Case Alleging Retaliation/Disability Discrimination.
SANTA ANA - Shareholder Greg A. Garbacz succeeded recently at trial in a complex employment case, representing a provide...r of alternative and renewable energy who was sued by an employee for disability discrimination after being laid off.
In Cui v. Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc., a senior engineer at Quantum, Chen Cui, had been working for approximately 15 months without any performance issues. Due to economic and business conditions at the time, Quantum management had decided to contract the company's workforce by ten percent, and Mr. Cui's position was one of those slated for elimination.
Mr. Cui was not aware of the layoff plans, which included him. However, a month before he was laid off, Mr. Cui was offered a transfer to another open position in a different department at Quantum, which Cui declined. Two weeks later, Mr. Cui requested accommodations for a medical disability. He asked to limit his shift in his existing position to eight hours per day, and to not work any overtime. Quantum agreed to it, but then laid off Mr. Cui two weeks later. Mr. Cui sued his former employer, charging disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to reasonably accommodate Mr. Cui's condition.
Mr. Cui sought both economic and noneconomic damages due to emotional distress. Both parties tried to resolve the case, but the Plaintiff's final demand of $450,000 plus statutory attorneys fees forced trial.
During trial, the Plaintiff argued that Quantum failed to reasonably accommodate his disability because Quantum didn't transfer him to the open position while honoring his medical restrictions. Representing Quantum Garbacz countered that the company immediately granted all of the Plaintiff's requests for accommodation, and that he had requested his transfer to the open position to be put on hold or cancelled. Garbacz further argued that Mr. Cui's claim that he had wanted to be transferred to the new position was contrary to his actions, and amounted to revisionist history created after his layoff.
Mr. Cui also contended that he was targeted for layoff because of his disability, and that the company had actually retaliated against him for exercising his disability-related rights. Mr. Garbacz demonstrated that Quantum had immediately granted every restriction presented by the Plaintiff, and that the decision to layoff the Plaintiff had been made days before the Plaintiff even notified Quantum of his medical condition. Mr. Garbacz also argued that the layoff decision was made purely for economic and business reasons, and had zero correlation to the Plaintiff's disability.
"Human nature is for us to always 'connect the dots'," noted William K. Browning, Co-Chair of Klinedinst's Employment Law Group. "When a plaintiff presents facts that he became ill and was subsequently fired from his job, there is a natural temptation to connect those two events, even though they could be entirely unrelated. The challenge in these cases is overcoming that natural temptation, and convincing a jury that there is a legitimate, and often more complex, reason for the employment decision."
After a two week trial, the case was submitted to a jury. The jury found for the defense on all five causes of action. The jury noted that, although the timing of the layoff decision was close to the Plaintiff's request for accommodation, the jury felt that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or retaliation.
On May 26, 2011, Klinedinst attorneys presented and won a motion for recovery of nearly $35,000 in legal costs against the Plaintiff, bringing this two year case to a close.
Discrimination
Sabi v. Sterling
Jun 02, 2010
OUTCOME: Defense verdict/successful appeal
LOS ANGELES - Klinedinst attorneys Greg A. Garbacz and G. Dale Britton recently won a landmark appellate decision that has broad implications for property owners, landlords and property managers.
I...n Sabi v. Sterling, the plaintiff was Elisheba Sabi, a 77 year-old tenant who rented an apartment from a building owned by Donald T. Sterling and managed by Beverly Hills Properties. The plaintiff suffered from several physical and psychological disabilities, and received supplemental Social Security income as a result. In 2003, the plaintiff became eligible to receive housing vouchers through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The vouchers, issued as part of the voluntary Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, are designed to help low income individuals offset their rent through partial payment with vouchers. The federal program is designed to be voluntary, allowing landlords and property owners to accept vouchers if they so choose.
The plaintiff filed suit in 2007 in an attempt to force the defendant to accept the Section 8 vouchers as payment, and to compel its participation in the otherwise voluntary federal housing program. The plaintiff advanced two primary theories at trial. First, the plaintiff contended that declining the housing voucher violated California's disability discrimination laws. Second, the plaintiff claimed that declining the housing voucher violated the prohibition against "source of income" discrimination. However, a Los Angeles jury rejected plaintiff's theories of recovery after a lengthy trial, instead finding that no disability discrimination had occurred because there was no causal connection between the plaintiff's financial need for the Section 8 voucher and her disabilities.
"It is clear that the federal Section 8 voucher program is a completely voluntary program for landowners," noted Greg Garbacz, who served as lead trial counsel when the case went to a jury and argued the appeal before the Second District. "It also is clear that the tenant here was unable to show a causal link between her documented disabilities and the need for our clients to accept a federal housing voucher. Instead, what the plaintiff wanted was a purely financial accommodation, which was not required by California's fair housing laws," Garbacz added.
After the defense verdict, the plaintiff appealed to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal. Mr. Garbacz argued the case to the appellate court. The court of appeal recently affirmed the jury's verdict, upholding the rights of landowners and property managers to choose whether or not to participate in the Section 8 voucher program.
"The appellate court rejected the housing rights advocates' overreaching arguments to force a property owner or manager to participate in an otherwise voluntary federal housing program," continued Mr. Garbacz. "This appellate win is a very large victory for California property owners and managers."
