Attorney Jenos Firouznam's Legal Cases

Business

Convenience Retailers, LLC v. Kambit, Inc., and consolidated actions & Irvine Fuel Exchange Inc., et al.

N/A

OUTCOME:

The owner of three “76” fuel/service stations sought to evict the tenants/operators (our clients) of each station upon termination of the term of each lease. Federal law concerning fuel franchises did ... not afford our clients protection from eviction. In a case of first impression relying entirely upon the opinions of the Commissioner of Corporations (as there were no statutes or case law on point), judgement after court trial was entered in favor of our clients, finding that their service bay and convenience store businesses at the premises constituted a franchise under California law and the plaintiff had failed to follow statutorily mandated procedures for termination of a franchise. Our clients prevailed in the eviction proceedings, were allowed to continue possession of their businesses, and were awarded substantial attorney fees against the plaintiff. The judge presiding over the trial retired soon thereafter and went on to describe the case as one of the most interesting cases of his career. Subsequently, the owners of the 76 stations sought to terminate the franchises of each of our three clients, at which time we sued the fuel station owner and the fuel company, Phillips 66 (aka ConocoPhillips) for fraud and other claims. That hotly litigated case eventually resulted in a very successful settlement for our clients. Where they originally stood to lose their businesses without any compensation, we helped our clients maintain possession and continue to derive profits years after eviction proceedings were instituted and, eventually, they became the sole owners of the stations, including the land.

Family

Haghighat v. Haghighat

N/A

OUTCOME:

While defending a client in a dispute over percentage ownership in an LLC, an investigation into the plaintiff’s prior reported ownership interests led to the discovery that the LLC asset was never dis ... closed in a prior divorce action. That discovery led to our representation of the plaintiff’s former wife in an action setting aside the dissolution judgment entered several years earlier and pursuing the former husband (plaintiff in the prior action) for division of the undisclosed asset and breach of his fiduciary duties prior to and after separation. After a court trial, judgement was entered in favor of our client (former wife) for 100% of the undisclosed community funds, in addition to attorney fees and further sanctions. The former husband appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and granted our request for a determination that the appeal be found meritless and for the sole purpose of delay. As a result, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to award further sanctions for a frivolous appeal, in addition to the sanctions already awarded by the affirmed judgment. Where a former wife had no idea that she was cheated years earlier in her divorce, we alerted her to this fact and after years of litigation, we collected approximately $700,000 for her. The matter is currently pending a further judgment for attorney fees on appeal, further sanctions, interest and costs.

Employment and labor

Gonfiotti v. Medical Providers, Inc.

N/A

OUTCOME:

Where our client, an employer, was sued by its former employee for wage and hour violations and sex/pregnancy discrimination, our client was faced with either litigating the case or paying a substantia ... l settlement to avoid litigation. We fought the case for our client while awaiting the long anticipated ruling of the California Supreme Court regarding meal and rest breaks, one of the more concerning issues amongst the wage and hour violations alleged by the employee. That Supreme Court decision proved to be very beneficial to our client’s defense, as we had hoped and anticipated. About one month after that decision was filed, our case went to trial before a jury, resulting in a verdict for our client on all causes of action, including discrimination. That verdict was reduced to a judgment for our client and an award of costs against the employee.

Consumer protection

Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., et al.

N/A

OUTCOME:

Our client, an auto dealer, was sued by a customer for failing to disclose vehicle damage at the time of purchase. In response to a pre-litigation demand, we sent an offer to remedy under the provisio ... ns of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). The customer’s attorney refused to settle the matter unless he was paid a substantial sum in attorney fees. The case was hotly litigated and ultimately settled for less than that which was originally offered pre-litigation. The settlement allowed the plaintiff to bring a motion for attorney fees and costs, and one was filed seeking nearly $200,000 against our client. The trial court refused to award any attorney fees, agreeing with our position that the pre-litigation offer complied with the CLRA and thus barred any further relief. The customer appealed the trial court’s decision. In a published case of first impression, the Court of Appeal found that the pre-litigation offer met the statutory requirements of the CLRA and affirmed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. This appellate opinion has helped shape the manner in which consumer lawsuits are litigated; it has served as one of the most significant resources to litigants and courts when evaluating the appropriateness of a CLRA offer; and it has helped hinder predatory lawsuits by consumer attorneys.

Jenos Firouznam's Legal Cases (4)

Convenience Retailers, LLC v. Kambit, Inc., and consolidated actions & Irvine Fuel Exchange Inc., et al.

Haghighat v. Haghighat

Gonfiotti v. Medical Providers, Inc.

Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., et al.