Here are some published decisions where we feel we achieved very favorable results for our client in very difficult circumstances. In reviewing these cases, you need to be mindful of the following: (1) All cases are different and the results achieved in these cases are not indicative of results that might be obtained in another case; (2) The vast majority of cases don't go to trial; and (3) The majority of appealed cases do NOT result in a published decision, which means they can't be cited as precedent. All the cases listed below can be cited as precedent, because they are published decisions.
(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425 (4th DCA, Div. 1) - School District improperly disqualified low apparent bidder without a hearing. In this case, the court of appeal held that the trial court erred in refusing to issue writ of mandate where low apparent bidder disqualified on grounds Court of Appeal found highly suspect.
(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th581 (2nd DCA, Div. 8) - Subcontractor's must be licensed even where shop drawings are submitted prior to signing subcontract. In this case, the court held subcontractor could not recover where it was not licensed at time it submitted shop drawings even though it was licensed at the time it signed the subcontract.
503 B.R. 737 (Bkrtcy. C.D.Cal. 2013) - 90 Day preference does not apply to all situations. In a bankruptcy filed by general contractor, the bankruptcy court held that exceptions to preference claim made by the Creditor's Committee (which, by statute, can exercise the powers of the Trustee) prevented Creditor's Committee from recovering monies paid to an electrical subcontractor within 30 days of general contractor's bankruptcy filing.
322 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003) - Unrecorded lien against real property is not necessarily avoidable by Trustee in bankruptcy. Court of appeal held bankruptcy trustee cannot avoid transfer where, on the facts of the case, bona fide purchaser for value would be on inquiry notice of an unrecorded valid lien against the Debtor's property.
(1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 755 (4th DCA, Div. 2) - Custodial parent does not lose custody solely because of desire to relocate to another jurisdiction. In this case, the court held the custodial parent's right to travel (move to another jurisdiction) is not grounds for changing or withholding custody of minor child of marriage