REPRESENTATIVE CASES

image1

BUSINESS LITIGATION

  • Plaintiff's assignor sold livestock feed to defendant. At the end of the relationship, there was a balance due of $11,576. However, defendant contended that it was due an offset of $3,466 for product plaintiff's assignor refused to pick up from defendant. When defendant failed to pay plaintiff's assignor, plaintiff's assignor assigned its claim to plaintiff, a collection agency. Thereafter, plaintiff sued defendant, alleging common count theories of recovery. Plaintiff alleged that defendant owed the sum of $11,576 for goods sold and that defendant was not entitled to an offset for goods defendant attempted to return. Defendant contended that it was entitled to the credit and also several hundred dollars in additional credits since defendant's last order from plaintiff's assignor also contained bad product for which credit was not issued.


  • Plaintiffs entered into a written installment sales contract to buy a used car from defendant car dealership. Plaintiffs alleged that after the purchase, they discovered that defendant did not have clean title, and therefore plaintiffs were unable to register the vehicle. The car was repeatedly ticketed for lack of a registration. When plaintiffs went to defendant for help, they were ushered out of the office. Defendant refused to return the money paid by plaintiffs and failed to provide the registration to plaintiffs. The vehicle was eventually repossessed and plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit, claiming breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiffs sought to revoke acceptance of the sales contract and requested that defendants restore the amount paid.


  • Violation of ATROS (Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders) by refinancing the property, breach of fiduciary duties due to concealment of assets, business valuation, substantial credit card obligations. Settled.


  • Long term marriage involving the valuation of the contractor’s business, spousal support, sale of the marital home. Settled.


  • Valuation of business where two forensic accountants differed substantially in the value of the business, imputation of income due to decreased earnings of one party, Family Code §4331 vocational examination party, division of debts, Watts charges, retirement plans, life insurance plans, spousal support, and attorney’s fees. Case settled.