Skip to main content
B Douglas Robbins

B Robbins’s Legal Cases

15 total


  • Big Industries Productions LLC v. Fournier, No. 74-140-000297-12 S1M (Am. Arb. Assoc. 2013)

    Practice Area:
    Entertainment
    Date:
    Jun 06, 2013
    Outcome:
    Arbitration Win
    Description:
    (not available)
  • Hicks v. Yuen, Case No. CGC-09-492236 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. County 2011)

    Practice Area:
    Employment and labor
    Date:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Outcome:
    Trial Win on Complaint; Trial Win on Cross-Complaint
    Description:
    In this matter independent contractors claimed to be our clients' employees and sought statutory damages for employment misclassification and for on-the-job back injury. We defended by proving that the contractors were not employees. We also cross-complained that the contractors performed certain work without a proper license under California's strict Business and Professions Code. After a four-week bench trial, the Court dismissed all of the contractors causes of action against our clients and awarded for us, and against the contractors, nearly a quarter of a million dollars on our cross complaint and all costs.
  • Youhas v. Walters & Kondrasheff, CPAs, Case No. CV 164423 (Cal. Super Ct., Santa Cruz County 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Mar 01, 2010
    Outcome:
    Complete Dismissal on Demurrer
    Description:
    Plaintiff, Thomas Youhas ran a business called Toy Science. Unbeknownst to Mr. Youhas, his bookkeeper was embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from his company. Mr. Youhas sued his accounting firm, Walters and Kondrasheff claiming that the accounting firm should have set up controls to catch his bookkeeper’s embezzlement. Mr. Youhas’ claims were ill-founded since the accounting firm was not hired to set up controls; rather the firm was simply asked to prepare taxes. Our firm represented the accountants and had the entire lawsuit dismissed on demurrer. We argued, and the court agreed that (1) Mr. Youhas' Unfair Competition claim improperly plead damages, (2) that Mr. Youhas' emotional distress causes of action failed to assert non-economic harm, (3) that Mr. Youhas lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because he was not the real party in interest, and (4) that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
  • Mozingo v. Moreland and Davis Accountancy Corp., Case No. RG09470752 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Feb 01, 2010
    Outcome:
    $0 dismissal
    Description:
    In this case a client accused her former accountant and CPA of conducting a ponzi scheme. After conducting discovery, we were able to negotiate a $0 dismissal of all causes of action against our clients.
  • Fuller v. Moreland, Case No. VG09464185 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Outcome:
    $0 Dismissal of Entire Action
    Description:
    In this case a client accused his former accountant of conducting a ponzi scheme. After conducting discovery, we were able to negotiate a $0 dismissal of all causes of action against our clients.
  • Chin v. Buyers & Sellers Preferred Realty, Inc., Case No. CIV 477516 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Outcome:
    Law & Motion Win
    Description:
    In this case Plaintiffs sued our client, a real estate agent, claiming that as a result of malpractice, the agent had caused a real estate deal to fall through. We defended the agent, took discovery and moved for summary judgment. We prevailed on that motion, dismissing the case in full. Our client recovered his costs.
  • Cal.-Nev. Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. San Francisco, 2009 WL 1396407 (Cal. Ct. App. May 20, 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    May 20, 2009
    Outcome:
    Trial court win; Court of appeals win
    Description:
    The City of San Francisco designated a Church on Clay and Larkin Streets a landmark. The Methodist Church properly objected to the landmarking designation, which, under the provisions of special California statute meant that the City lost its right to landmark that property. The City disagreed and continued the landmark process. We sued under authority of writ, arguing that landmarking the Church was beyond the City's jurisdiction. The trial court agreed, issuing the writ to stop the City. The City apealled and the court of appeal affirmed 3-0, killing the City's authority to landmark.
  • Schuler v. Schuler, Case Nos. A119125 & A119472, 2008 WL 4968003 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Outcome:
    Law & Motion and Appellate Court win
    Description:
    This is a 25 year old case wherein a daughter took and kept title to her mother's house, without her mother's consent. The mother, our client, sued and won right to title of her house, but daughter appealed arguing that due to a technical issue, the judgment, issued in 1982, was never "officially" entered. We took over the case in 2007 and argued under a special motion known as nunc pro tunc, that the old 1982 judgment should be entered retroactively so as to restore the mother's right to her Oakland property. The trial judge and eventually, in a unanimous ruling, the court of appeal agreed.
  • Levy v. Seiberlich, Case No. A120212, 2008 WL 4726456 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Outcome:
    Arbitration, Law and Motion & Appellate Court Win
    Description:
    One professional sold his practice to another but the deal fell apart. The parties first tried mediation but that failed too. The matter was finally resolved in arbitration but the opposition, still unsatisfied, removed the controversy to the California Superior Court. In response we successfully moved the Court to enter the arbitration award as a final judgment. The opposition appealed. We prevailed, yet again on appeal by arguing that the arbitration award was final and binding and that the arbitrator violated no law in coming to his final decision.
  • Thomson v. Harris, Case No. 453838 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 20, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Date:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Outcome:
    Trial Court Win
    Description:
    The Plaintiff sued our client, the Defendant, for fraud, conversion, and other related torts involving a residential real estate transaction. The matter when to a bench trial where the Court determined that Defendant was not guilty of any wrong doing. Instead of being awarded any money, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay our client's attorney's fees. Plaintiff did not appeal the judgment.