Cases of Interest

• ADA Accessibility Compliance
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Appellate
• Business
• Construction
• Education Law
• Employment
• Employment Practices & Liability Insurance
• Environmental Law & Property Rights
• Healthcare
• Personal Injury
• Plaintiff Representation
• Premises Liability
• Products Liability
• Professional Liability
• Public Entities
• Real Estate

Business

• Currently representing a local publishing company in a misappropriation of intellectual property and trade secret matter against a national publishing firm.
  
• Took over representation defending a specialized staffing corporation in a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act after preliminary injunction was granted.
  
• Negotiated complex settlement agreement on behalf of major Sacramento developer in breach of contract action and related cross-actions. As a condition of settlement, client obtained assets which allowed him to continue with development of desirable residential project.
  
• Successfully defended major Placer County developer in El Dorado County in an alter ego and breach of contract fraud matter. Placer County developer was sued erroneously as principal of contractor who defrauded other major land developers. Resolved matter for nuisance value while motion for summary judgment was pending on the legal question of alter ego.
  
• Represented major Sacramento developer in Napa County in a breach of commercial lease and development transaction involving a movie production studio and damage of movie props. Negotiated substantially in favor of developer client on all financial terms.
  
• Successfully defended autistic services company and its owners against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, interference with prospective business advantage, and conversion. Defeated request for preliminary injunction and negotiated favorable settlement on behalf of client.
  
• Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of a California food sales agency client sued by a competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, unlawful solicitation, and alleged breach of non-competition agreements, among other claims.  After defeating Plaintiff's multiple attempts to seek injunctive relief and conducting a damaging deposition of Plaintiff's President, Porter Scott successfully negotiated a nuisance value settlement in exchange for a full release and dismissal within approximately four months of Plaintiff bringing the case.  Plaintiff initially demanded damages amounting to more than $1,000,000
  
• Prevailed on directed verdict motion on claims filed against an escrow company over a multimillion dollar commercial real estate sale in Kern County, California.  Defeated both breach of contract and negligence claims against defendant escrow company and obtained judgment in favor of our client for attorney's fees as prevailing party. 
  
• Porter Scott obtained a $9.1 million binding arbitration award before a three judge panel on behalf of one of Sacramento's major beverage distributors.  Following a nine day binding arbitration in San Francisco before a JAMS panel, partners Carl Calnero and Martin Jensen prevailed in a major commercial/business matter of first impression in California.  In the case, the firm represented a family-owned, successful beverage distributor who had been denied a fair market value for the sale of their business, based on a contract provision within the distribution rights agreement.  That provision purportedly gave the right to the manufacturer to approve or disapprove of the dealership rights sale.  The manufacturer, one of the nations largest beer and alcoholic beverage manufacturers, had rejected the sale claiming that the designated purchaser did not satisfy its requirements for approval. Despite the fact that that same purchasing designee had in fact been appointed as a beverage distributor for that very same manufacturer in various other parts of California.  The manufacturer contended that it had the right to determine which markets would be served by various dealerships, and therefore impinged on the right of Porter Scott’s client to sell its distribution rights to a bonafide purchaser for a fair market value.  California Statutory Law dictates that in such a scenario, if the “disapproval” was accomplished in bad faith, the manufacturer would be responsible to the selling dealer for the difference in fair market value lost.  Although statutory law had been clear, the case and decision now cements the rights of dealers to alienate or sell their exclusive distribution rights, no longer subject to the whims of a manufacturer or supplier.
  
• Represented a family-owned insurance brokerage company in a breach of contract case.  Plaintiffs claimed their insurance brokerage was negligent in failing to tender a claim to their insurance company, causing them to pay for their own defense in a separate lawsuit.  After a jury verdict, plaintiffs were awarded only one fifth of the amount they demanded prior to trial.