PRO

David Allen Robinson's Legal Cases (8)

Call for a consultation Call (949) 736-2162 Message View Profile

Consumer protection

Banyan v. Baer, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 5672, 5673,5665 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2013)

Aug 12, 2013

OUTCOME: Defense judgment for ECG's client

These are three concurrent appeals that brought an end to complex litigation spanning almost two decades. The litigation involved tens of millions of dollars, an international “asset protection” Ponzi ... scheme, the intentional destruction of evidence and a forensic reconstruction of over ten years of fraudulent transfers and embezzlement. The lawsuit was tried in four separate phases over seven years before different judges. Mr. Robinson was the lead trial and appellate lawyer for ECG’s successful client, an entrepreneur wrongfully accused of participating in the Ponzi scheme by several duped “clients.” In the mid-1980’s, ECG’s client partnered with a lawyer to market, mass-produce and sell “high end” estate plans to wealthy people. Over time, the lawyer – David Tedder – went rogue and started secretly selling an entirely different product. Tedder convinced mega-wealthy people to entrust him with tens of millions of dollars so he could hide it from their creditors and tax authorities. Tedder performed this unlawful service by setting up dozens of sham entities, off-shore trusts, banks, etc. that he used to commingle and “kite” funds back and forth. Tedder called these entities his “controlled accounts.” Presumably, this is because Tedder, and Tedder alone, knew where the money was and Tedder alone controlled it. In the meantime, while Tedder was secretly taking in money from people wanting to hide it from their creditors, his partnership with ECG’s client was falling apart. That is to say, the partnership never generated a profit and, at least according to Tedder, was accumulating debt. Ultimately, Tedder moved his offices to Florida and took all the books and records with him. The partnership officially fell apart when Tedder demanded that ECG’s client help fund the repayment of alleged client “loans,” but refused to provide ECG’s client access to any books or records explaining the origin and amount of those “loans.” The court later agreed with ECG that the evidence showed many of these records were later lost or destroyed while in the possession of Tedder or those working for him. Ultimately, what amounted to a secret, complex international Ponzi scheme operated by Tedder fell apart when several millionaires who entrusted Tedder with all this cash started to demand their money back. Tedder claimed he did not have it and pointed his finger at his former partner, ECG’s client. This was back in 1996 when the lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court started. At that time, donning his hat as a lawyer, Tedder filed the lawsuit on behalf of a handful of his so-called disappointed “clients.” Over time, the lawsuit morphed. Tedder ended up going to prison for fraud committed in a different state and his duped clients hired a series of new and different lawyers. By the time the final “phase” of a four-part case was tried in 2010, Tedder went from advocate for the rights of his duped clients to the primary “bad guy” thief. However, since Tedder had by then successfully hidden whatever monies might still remain from his Ponzi scheme, his former clients claimed ECG’s client, a layman, was liable because he was Tedder’s former “law” partner. After months of trial, dozens of witnesses and a detailed forensic reconstruction of Tedder’s illegal activities, ECG’s client was ultimately found blameless for all tortuous wrongdoing. The three above-referenced, concurrently released appellate decisions uphold this successful outcome for ECG’s client in all respects. In addition, the Court of Appeal instructed the Orange County Superior Court to immediately grant judgment for ECG’s client, overturning an earlier post-trial order permitting Tedder’s duped clients one more opportunity to prove ECG’s client was the alleged "alter ego" of two entities found to have borrowed money from certain of the "controlled accounts."

Class action

Barnes, Crosby, FitzGerald & Zeman LLP v. Jerome L. Ringler, 212 Cal. App. 4th 172 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2012)

Dec 19, 2012

OUTCOME: Published opinion recognizing a new "bad guy" exception applicable to plaintiffs' counsel in class action lawsuits.

Mr. Robinson is the lead trial attorney in this high profile case wherein ECG represents a prominent Southern California law firm. That client law firm referred a multi-million dollar fraud and unfair ... business practice claim to self-professed class action specialists. The specialists solicited the referral by promising to share fees with ECG's clients. Shortly before the class action was "certified" by the complex division of the Orange County Superior Court, the specialists reneged on their promise, asserting non-compliance with Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 2-200, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769 as a defense. In this published opinion, the court of appeal establishes a new rule of law by agreeing with Mr. Robinson that specialists who act in a fraudulent and inequitable manner should be barred (estopped) from asserting noncompliance with such rules to avoid liability. In other words, the court held professional rules are not meant to be used as a "sword" by wrongdoing attorneys to defeat enforcement of their written promises in the context of a class action lawsuit.

Real estate

409 CCR, LLC v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., etc., et al., District Court, Larimer County, State of Colorado Case No. 11 CV 1333

Jul 23, 2012

OUTCOME: Judgment for ECG clients against Dick's Sporting Goods quieting title to approximately 880 acres of real property.

Mr. Robinson and ECG successfully sued Dick’s Sporting Goods (“Dick’s”) and others to quiet title to approximately 880 acres of real property near the intersection of Interstate 25 near Highway 34 in N ... orthern Colorado. More particularly, following a full trial on the merits, the Court ruled in favor of ECG’s clients – a consortium of real estate owners/developers – finding them not bound by a use restriction (non-compete provision) in Dick’s long-term lease of "anchor" space in an upscale, outdoor regional shopping mall situated in Loveland, Colorado. The invalidated clause previously purported to prohibit ECG’s clients from developing, selling, leasing or operating any retail store or outlet selling sporting goods, sporting apparel, etc. within a three (3) mile radius of Dick’s existing location. The result has paved the way for open competition in the sporting goods market in Loveland and the surrounding communities.

Libel and slander

Le Plastrier v. Masters, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11580, 1, 2004 WL 2944077 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004)

Dec 21, 2009

OUTCOME: Unanimous jury verdict for ECG's client against a law firm for slander to title (partially reversed on appeal)

Mr. Robinson and ECG, representing a gentleman harmed by tactics employed by his ex-wife’s divorce lawyers in a failed attempt to induce an unjustified financial settlement, sued the divorce lawyers fo ... r abuse of process (improper recordation of a lis pendens clouding title to real property) and slander of credit. After trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict against the divorce lawyers and awarded ECG’s client punitive damages. In this unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed part of that award.

Government

Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp., 175 Cal.App.4th 524 (Cal. App. 4th 2009)

Jun 30, 2009

OUTCOME: Successful judgment for ECG's City Council member clients compelling production of records concerning the hiring of a CEO, and expenditure of monies, for Orange County's "Great Park"

This case marked another chapter in the long saga of Orange County’s controversial “Great Park.” Mr. Robinson and ECG represented two sitting members of the Irvine City Council, Christina Shea and Dr. ... Stephen Choi. By municipal ordinance, all members of that governmental body also sit on the Board of Directors of the “Great Park Corporation” – an entity charged with managing over $400 million to develop a public park and related recreational facilities on property formerly owned by the United States government and operated as the El Toro Naval/Marine Air Station. Nonetheless, when Council members Shea and Choi asked to inspect records relative to the Great Park’s then on-going search for a new chief executive officer, they were denied access. Mr. Robinson and ECG accordingly filed suit in Orange County Superior Court to compel such disclosure. As the case neared trial, the majority in control of the Irvine City Council and Great Park Corporation relented, and by way a written settlement agreement, belatedly agreed to give Shea and Choi access. The majority opposed, however, Shea and Choi’s later request for reimbursement of their legal expenses. The Orange County Superior Court sided with the majority, stating that Shea and Choi’s lawsuit did not advance any public interest. In this published decision, the Court of Appeal reversed and awarded Shea and Choi their legal expenses. In so doing, the Court of Appeal noted, among other things, given “the checkered history of the CEO search and the ongoing public criticism of the “revolving door of Great Park executives” (Barboza, Irvine council members question Great Park CEO search, L.A. Times (Feb. 6, 2008)), the method used for selection of the CEO should be beyond reproach … Seeking the documents [] served to enforce plaintiffs' absolute inspection rights as directors of a public benefit corporation … Additionally, review of the documents would aid plaintiffs in selecting the best possible CEO, not necessarily a person connected to the City of Irvine or one of its political leaders.” 175 Cal. App. 4th at 529-31.

Land use and zoning

Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Association, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1111 (2008)

Nov 03, 2008

OUTCOME: Published opinion upholding declaratory relief judgment and writ of mandamus requiring forced removal of hundreds of palm trees blocking ocean facing views in an upscale single family community.

Individual homeowners living in an upscale, ocean-facing common interest development comprised of single-family homes hired Mr. Robinson and ECG to sue their homeowners association (“HOA”) to compel th ... e HOA’s removal of view blocking palm trees growing on other properties within the same development. After trial, the Orange County Superior Court ruled for ECG’s clients and issued a declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus, compelling the HOA to enforce its recorded declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) by removing – or cutting in half – the offending palm trees. The HOA appealed. In this published opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Robinson and ECG that (1) the HOA’s Board of Directors (dominated by palm trees owners) could not adopt a policy exempting palm trees from an otherwise unambiguous and universal CC&R prohibition against vegetation growing higher than rooflines, and (2) the HOA could not assert as a defense the doctrine of “judicial deference” owed to HOA decision-makers as a result of the HOA’s failure to timely raise this defense before trial and as a result of its failure to prove its elected Board acted reasonably and in good faith toward ECG’s clients.

Mergers and acquisitions

Joseph P. Saline v. Superior Court (Commonwealth Energy Corporation), 100 Cal.App.4th 909 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2002)

Jul 30, 2002

OUTCOME: Successful judgment for ECG's client, a "dissident" corporate director/minority shareholder seeking to compel a publicly traded utility company's disclosure of records relative to a proposed merger

Mr. Robinson and ECG represented a director and founding investor in a publicly traded energy company: i.e., Commonwealth Energy Corporation (CEC). ECG’s client openly opposed a proposed merger promo ... ted by CEC’s management. When CEC’s management retaliated by denying ECG’s client access to allegedly “sensitive” internal corporate records and communications, Mr. Robinson and ECG responded by filing an action in Orange County Superior Court to compel disclosure of the same pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Corporations Code. The trial court initially refused to grant such relief, and further imposed a "gag" order prohibiting ECG's client from communicating with other CEC shareholders, agreeing with CEC that ECG’s client was a “dissident” who could not be trusted with such information. In the above-cited published decision, the Court of Appeal overruled the Superior Court and directed that ECG’s client be given full access to CEC’s books and records. This published decision has since frequently been cited as support for the propositions that (1) unsubstantiated claims of misbehavior and/or conflicts of interest are insufficient to deny corporate directors access to sensitive, non-public corporate information, and (2) a trial court order requiring a corporate director to prove “good cause” before being allowed to receive or inspect corporate records, and further prohibiting the director from sharing such information with other shareholders, constitutes, among other things, an unlawful prior restraint on free speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Commercial real estate

Videotape Plus, Inc. v. Lyons, 89 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2001)

Apr 18, 2001

OUTCOME: Defense judgment on fraud, conversion and negligence claims at trial; published opinion vindicating the right of ECG's entertainment industry client to subsequently counter-sue those falsely accusing it of corporate sabotage and theft.

Mr. Robinson and ECG represented Videotape Plus, Inc. (“VPI”), a Burbank-California based wholesale supplier of videotape and other media supplies used by major television networks and film studios. W ... hen a competitor, Dubs Inc. (“Dubs”), falsely accused VPI of conspiring with one of Dub’s supervisors to steal videotapes from a secure Hollywood facility, Mr. Robinson and ECG vigorously defended the case. After ECG moved to dismiss all of Dubs’ claims via summary judgment, Dubs voluntarily abandoned its negligence claim. Thereafter, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted ECG’s motion and dismissed Dubs’ remaining claims for fraud and conversion. In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the fraud claim, but reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Dubs’ conversion claim and remanded that part of the case for further proceedings. (Dubs, Inc. v. Videotape Plus, Inc. (Jan. 7, 1999, B118053).) After remand, Dubs refused to cooperate with VPI’s discovery requests. On the first day of trial, the court suspended proceedings and ordered Dubs to produce two witnesses for deposition to explain these discovery abuses. Dubs did not comply: one witness did not appear and the second improperly terminated her deposition after less than one hour of testimony. Based on such willful misconduct, the trial court granted ECG’s ensuing motion seeking terminating sanctions at trial against Dubs. Mr. Robinson and ECG then, at VPI’s request, counter-sued Dubs and its attorney, Gerald P. Cunningham, for malicious prosecution seeking compensatory and punitive damages caused by Dubs’ and Cunningham’s prosecution of a substantively baseless lawsuit. When a different Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed VPI’s malicious prosecution lawsuit, the Court of Appeal – this time in the above-cited published opinion – reversed and instated VPI’s malicious prosecution claim. In so doing, the Court of Appeal held a plaintiff must have probable cause for each cause of action alleged in a lawsuit, and the Court of Appeal’s interim ruling reinstating Dubs’ conversion claim for further proceedings did not establish the existence of such probable cause supporting Dubs’ dismissed negligence and fraud claims.