Los Angeles Lawyer November 2008

Transcription

Semiannual Guide to Expert Witnesses
November 2008 /$4
E A R N MCLE CR E D I T
Disclosure of
Pending Suits
page 25
By
Accident
Los Angeles lawyer Michael R. Sohigian
discusses insurance coverage for unintended
damages of intentional acts page 20
PLUS
Completion Guaranties page 12
Reciprocal Easements page 18
Incorporating in Nevada page 32
0/&'*3.
."/:40-65*0/4
Foepstfe!Qspufdujpo
-"8'*3.$-*&/54
Q
"$$&445007&3130'&44*0/"-
Q
-*"#*-*5:1307*%&34
0/-*/&"11-*$"5*0/4'03
&"4:$0.1-&5*0/
Q
&/%034&%130'&44*0/"--*"#*-*5:*/463"/$&#30,&3
Call 1-800-282-9786 today to speak to a specialist.
4"/%*&(003"/(&$06/5:-04"/(&-&44"/'3"/$*4$0
5
'
-*$&/4&$
888")&3/*/463"/$&$0.
F E AT U R E S
20 By Accident
BY MICHAEL R. SOHIGIAN
In most cases, claims for damages that are the unintended consequences
of an intentional act trigger an insurer’s duty to defend
25 Disclose or Dismiss
BY CRAIG A. ROEB
A debtor who conceals a pending civil action from a bankruptcy court may face
dismissal of the claim
Plus: Earn MCLE credit. MCLE Test No. 175 appears on page 27.
32 Silver Standard
BY KEITH PAUL BISHOP
In many situations, California law will prevail even if an entity is incorporated
in Nevada
43 Special Section
Semiannual Guide to Expert Witnesses
D E PA RT M E N T S
Los Angeles Lawyer
the magazine of
the Los Angeles County
10 Barristers Tips
Distinguishing between similar causes of
action
76 LACB Foundation
2007-2008 Fund Drive Results
BY JONATHAN HOWELL
80 Closing Argument
An ACE for Los Angeles high school
students
Bar Association
November 2008
Volume 31, No. 8
COVER PHOTO: TOM KELLER
12 Practice Tips
The role of completion guaranties in
construction lending
BY JUSTICE ROGER BOREN
BY ROBERT E. WILLIAMS
78 Classifieds
18 Practice Tips
Applying reciprocal easement agreements
to retail projects
79 Index to Advertisers
81 CLE Preview
11.08
BY GARY A. GLICK AND SCOTT L. GROSSFELD
LosAngelesLawyer
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET AT www.lacba.org/lalawyer
E-MAIL CAN BE SENT TO [email protected]
EDITORIAL BOARD
Chair
ANGELA J. DAVIS
Articles Coordinator
DAVID SCHNIDER
SERVICES FOR BOTH SIMPLE AND COMPLICATED DISPUTE RESOLUTION
REAL ESTATE ARBITRATION
& MEDIATION
tel 818.790.1851 fax 818.790.7671
e-mail [email protected]
web site www.mediationla.com
David W. Dresnick, President • ARBITRATOR/MEDIATOR
JERROLD ABELES
DANIEL L. ALEXANDER
ETHEL W. BENNETT
R. J. COMER
CHAD C. COOMBS
ELIZABETH L. CROOKE
KERRY A. DOLAN
GORDON ENG
HELENE J. FARBER
ERNESTINE FORREST
STUART R. FRAENKEL
MICHAEL A. GEIBELSON
TED HANDEL
JEFFREY A. HARTWICK
STEVEN HECHT
LAWRENCE J. IMEL
MEREDITH KARASCH
JOHN P. LECRONE
THANAYI LINDSEY
KAREN LUONG
PAUL MARKS
ELIZABETH MUNISOGLU
RICHARD H. NAKAMURA JR.
DENNIS PEREZ
GARY RASKIN
JACQUELINE M. REAL-SALAS
CAROLIN SHINING
HEATHER STERN
GRETCHEN D. STOCKDALE
TIMOTHY M. STUART
KENNETH W. SWENSON
CARMELA TAN
BRUCE TEPPER
R. JOSEPH TROJAN
PATRIC VERRONE
JEFFREY D. WOLF
STAFF
Publisher and Editor
SAMUEL LIPSMAN
Senior Editor
LAUREN MILICOV
Senior Editor
ERIC HOWARD
Art Director
LES SECHLER
Director of Design and Production
PATRICE HUGHES
Advertising Director
LINDA LONERO BEKAS
Sales and Marketing Coordinator
AARON J. ESTRADA
Advertising Coordinator
WILMA TRACY NADEAU
Administrative Coordinator
MATTY JALLOW BABY
LOS ANGELES LAWYER (ISSN 0162-2900) is published monthly, except for a
combined issue in July/August and a special issue in the fall, by the Los Angeles
County Bar Association, 261 S. Figueroa St., Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90012,
(213) 896-6503. Periodicals postage paid at Los Angeles, CA and additional mailing offices. Annual subscription price of $14 included in the Association membership
dues. Nonmember subscriptions: $28 annually; single copy price: $4 plus handling. Address changes must be submitted six weeks in advance of next issue date.
POSTMASTER: ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED. Send address changes to Los
Angeles Lawyer, P. O. Box 55020, Los Angeles CA 90055.
Copyright © 2008 by the Los Angeles County Bar Association. All rights
reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Printed by R. R. Donnelley, Liberty, MO. Member Business Publications Audit
of Circulation (BPA).
The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the
authors and not by the fact of publication necessarily those of the Association or
its members. All manuscripts are carefully considered by the Editorial Board. Letters
to the editor are subject to editing.
4 Los Angeles Lawyer November 2008
+HUPLSH3PJH[H)YPHU-VZ[LY(JJV\U[HU[Z
>L7H`([[LU[PVU·[V[OL.SVIHS-\[\YL
:[VULÄLSK1VZLWOZVU·(JJV\U[HU[ZMVY@V\Y>VYSK
>L YLJVNUPaL [OH[ ^L HYL WHY[ VM H ]PIYHU[ NSVIHS WYVMLZZPVUHS JVTT\UP[`>OL[OLY SVJHS
UH[PVUHSVYPU[LYUH[PVUHS^LLTWV^LYJSPLU[ZI`JYLH[PUNTLHUPUNM\SZ\Z[HPUHISLHUKZ\JJLZZM\S
^VYRPUNYLSH[PVUZOPWZ
*HSSMVYHJVTWSPTLU[HY`TLL[PUN(SSV^\Z[VZOVÔV^V\YOPNOSL]LSVMX\HSP[`HUKZLY]PJL
JHUHKKYLZZ`V\YULLKZ
/RV$QJHOHV
(DVW%D\
2UDQJH&RXQW\
6LOLFRQ9DOOH\
6DQ)UDQFLVFR
+RQJ.RQJ
6WRQH¿HOG-RVHSKVRQ,QF_3KRWRJUDSK\-RKQ/LY]H\
LOS ANGELES LAWYER IS THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
261 S. Figueroa St., Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90012-1881
Telephone 213.627.2727 / www.lacba.org
It’s More than Just a Referral
It’s Your Reputation
Make the Right Choice
Personal Injury • Products Liability
Medical Malpractice • Insurance Bad Faith
Referral Fees per State Bar Rules
www.cdrb-law.com
310.277.4857
The More You Know About Us,
The Better Choice You Will Make
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2460, Los Angeles, California 90067
310.277.4857 office ■ 310.277.5254 fax
www.cdrb-law.com
ASSOCIATION OFFICERS
President
DANETTE E. MEYERS
President-Elect
DON MIKE ANTHONY
Senior Vice President
ALAN K. STEINBRECHER
Vice President
ERIC A. WEBBER
Treasurer
LINDA L. CURTIS
Assistant Vice President
PATRICIA EGAN DAEHNKE
ANTHONY PAUL DIAZ
MARGARET P. STEVENS
JULIE K. XANDERS
Immediate Past President
GRETCHEN M. NELSON
Executive Director
STUART A. FORSYTH
Associate Executive Director/Chief Financial Officer
BRUCE BERRA
Associate Executive Director/General Counsel
W. CLARK BROWN
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
P. PATRICK ASHOURI
SUE M. BENDAVID-ARBIV
GEORGE F. BIRD JR.
KIMBERLY H. CLANCY
DUNCAN W. CRABTREE-IRELAND
JEFFERY J. DAAR
THOMAS J. DALY
TANJA L. DARROW
BEATRIZ D. DIERINGER
DANA M. DOUGLAS
PAMELA E. DUNN
CAMILLA M. ENG
IRA M. FRIEDMAN
ALEXANDER S. GAREEB
JACQUELINE J. HARDING
LAURIE R. HARROLD
BRIAN D. HUBEN
K. ANNE INOUE
LAWRENCE H. JACOBSON
HELEN B. KIM
RICHARD A. LEWIS
ELAINE W. MANDEL
ELLEN A. PANSKY
ANN I. PARK
THOMAS H. PETERS
LAURA S. SHIN
DAVID W. SWIFT
LUCY VARPETIAN
NORMA J. WILLIAMS
ROBIN L. YEAGER
AFFILIATED BAR ASSOCIATIONS
BEVERLY HILLS BAR ASSOCIATION
BLACK WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC.
CENTURY CITY BAR ASSOCIATION
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES
CULVER-MARINA BAR ASSOCIATION
EASTERN BAR ASSOCIATION
GLENDALE BAR ASSOCIATION
IRANIAN AMERICAN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
ITALIAN AMERICAN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
JAPANESE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
JOHN M. LANGSTON BAR ASSOCIATION
JUVENILE COURTS BAR ASSOCIATION
KOREAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
LAWYERS' CLUB OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LESBIAN AND GAY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES
LONG BEACH BAR ASSOCIATION
MEXICAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
PASADENA BAR ASSOCIATION
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BAR ASSOCIATION
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY BAR ASSOCIATION
SANTA CLARITA BAR ASSOCIATION
SANTA MONICA BAR ASSOCIATION
SOUTH ASIAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOUTH BAY BAR ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, INC.
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHINESE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
WHITTIER BAR ASSOCIATION
WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES
HONORABLE
LAWRENCE W. CRISPO
(RETIRED)
I
n the fictional work Historias de cronopios y de famas,
the Argentine writer Julio Cortázar (1914-1984) envisions
a parallel universe inhabited by “cronopios”—fuzzy green
creatures who are idealistic, creative, and optimistic—and
“famas”—other fuzzies who are methodical and well organized
Mediator
Referee
Arbitrator
213-926-6665
www.judgecrispo.com
Engineering the
Resolution of
the World’s Most
Intractable
Disputes.
Reginald A. Holmes, ESQ.
Arbitrator - Mediator - Private Judge
Intellectual Property • Entertainment
International • Employment
Business
THE HOLMES LAW FIRM
626-432-7222 (Phone)
626-432-7223 (Fax)
[email protected]
but rigid and unimaginative. Upon encountering a new city, for example, a fama will
immediately survey its hospitals and hotels for all indicia of conventional sophistication. A cronopio will find the trains already departed, the hotels fully booked, and
the taxi drivers indifferent. The cronopio, however, will spend the night dreaming
of the beautiful city he has just discovered, confident that its inconveniences are simply day-to-day realities everyone must endure.
As we go to press, I along with a few thousand other lawyers have just returned
from the State Bar Annual Meeting in Monterey, an event that more than once has
made me think of Cortázar’s imaginary realm. Only a fama would arrive at one of
the most stunning jewels of the California coast to spend the days in windowless conference rooms tethered to a Blackberry and the hope for a sprinkling of “rain” (i.e.,
client development). Only a cronopio would barely notice the countless hours
passed indoors, would keep repeating how gorgeous the weather was, and would
take inspiration from the humanitarians and scholars who speak for just an hour.
From a distance, the State Bar Annual Meeting looks just as irrelevant to our practices as Cortázar’s fictions. But a closer look at the bar’s recent history reveals the
error of this assumption. Thirty years ago, this publication featured a tongue-in-cheek
article titled “The Unmaking of a Bar Governor.” Authored by an individual who
lost his race for the State Bar Board of Governors, the article advises those aspiring
to a similar fate to keep “outside the establishment” and be “a minority of any kind.”
The essay further explains that no woman had yet been elected, only one African
American had served, and the “perks” of election included events at the Bohemian
and California Clubs. Mind you, this was 1978, not 1958.
This year, the five newly elected members of the State Bar board (full disclosure:
I am one of them) include three people of color and one woman. Notwithstanding
the contrast this presents to the board described in these pages just a few decades
ago, the board’s gender and ethnic composition is what I predict most of us will notice
last and think about least in evaluating my fellow board members. What is far more
striking are the extraordinary levels of professional excellence my board colleagues
have attained, their steadfast commitment to the betterment of our profession, and
their devotion of countless unbilled hours to the public interest. Indeed, what is
remarkable to me in our new president is not so much the message of inclusiveness
and diversity in her installation speech but her earlier campaign speech, in which she
promised to work very hard to advance all of the bar’s aims and would ask her fellow governors to join her in the rigors of increased commitment.
All of this is consistent with my own conclusion that we are at our best as lawyers
when we harness both our cronopio and fama proclivities. Like the fama on holiday, we know instinctively how to keep to a tightly wrought calendar and catch a
tiny error buried deep within a dense manuscript. But, given the opportunity, many
if not most of us relish the opportunity to use our legal abilities for the greater good.
And, when they are at their best, our bar leaders help us to be the most capable lawyers
we can be while also reminding us to listen occasionally to our better angels. ■
www.TheHolmesLawFirm.com
Also available through the
Amercian Arbitration Association
Angela J. Davis is an assistant U.S. attorney and the 2008-09 chair of the Los Angeles Lawyer
Editorial Board. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice.
welcome to
youbanking
SM
You
Nita J. Itchhaporia,
Counsellaw, a PLC
deserve expert financial
representation.
You have the right to a bank that understands the complex financial needs of attorneys
and law firms. A financial ally to guide your banking with a personal touch. Whether it’s
establishing IOLTAs and client trust accounts, arranging a line of credit to smooth cash flow
between cases, or managing employee benefits, you deserve a bank that gives you the proper
financial representation.
Call 1-888-818-6060 to schedule a meeting with a
Business Banking Specialist.
Invest in you ®
unionbank.com/attorneys
This is not a commitment to lend. Financing subject to credit and any applicable collateral approval. Other restrictions may apply. Financing available to
businesses located in California, Oregon, and Washington. Terms and conditions subject to change.
©2008 Union Bank of California, N.A. Member FDIC.
barristers tips
BY JONATHAN HOWELL
Distinguishing between Similar Causes of Action
Specifically, Cobbs v. Grant held that this negligent action occurs
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $12.1 MILLION AND $250,000 can be
one word. For example, in medical malpractice actions, plaintiffs often when an undisclosed complication results, “the occurrence of which
allege professional negligence and battery in the same complaint. In was not an integral part of the treatment procedure but merely a
an action for professional negligence due to the defendant’s failure known risk.” When an undisclosed complication results from a medto obtain the patient’s informed consent, the plaintiff’s noneconomic ical procedure, there is no intentional deviation from consent as in
damages are limited to $250,000 by the Medical Injury Compensation battery. Rather, the defendant has failed to meet the duty of care to
Reform Act, commonly referred to as MICRA.1 On the other hand, disclose pertinent information regarding risks and results. Thus, the
a cause of action for medical battery is not subject to the MICRA dam- action is based in negligence.6 Because the negligent failure to obtain
age cap and can include punitive damages.2 Although the amount of informed consent was carved out of medical battery, the distinction
damages available greatly differ, these two causes of action are actu- between the two actions is easily blurred.
ally closely related and can turn on whether the
defendant failed to inform the patient of the
nature of the treatment or only the risks of the
The result was that the $12.1 million in noneconomic damages
treatment.3 Thus, understanding the nuances of
these two causes of action is critical.
To demonstrate the point, in a medical malbecame a target for MICRA’s cap of $250,000.
practice case, the plaintiff alleges both professional negligence and battery. The jury returns
a verdict awarding the plaintiff $12.1 million in
noneconomic damages and over $600,000 in economic damages. The
Consulting model jury instructions may also be helpful in distindefense counsel, however, notices an error in the jury instructions. guishing these causes of action. For example, the Judicial Council of
Specifically, the plaintiff did not observe the distinction between med- California Civil Jury Instructions for medical battery and negligent
ical battery and negligent failure to obtain informed consent. As a result, failure to obtain informed consent both ask whether the defendant
the jury’s verdict is unclear as to whether a battery occurred. If the ver- performed a procedure without the patient’s informed consent.7 The
dict is premised on medical battery, the defense counsel cannot cap the difference is that the negligent failure to obtain informed consent
damages using MICRA. If the doctor’s conduct constitutes only pro- instruction goes further and asks if a reasonable person would have
fessional negligence, then MICRA will limit the noneconomic damages. consented if the defendant had informed the patient of the treatment’s
The above fact pattern is based on Saxena v. Goffney. By failing results and risks. Thus, mirroring case law, the model jury instructo distinguish the two causes of action in the verdict form, the jury tions draw a distinction between the two causes of action by focusdid not provide a clear finding of fact showing the doctor’s conduct ing on the risks of treatment rather than the nature of the treatment.
was not merely negligent failure to obtain informed consent but bat- Admittedly, this distinction in the jury instructions is not clear—as
tery. The court of appeal reversed the trial court and granted the defen- the court of appeal in Saxena points out.8
dant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the batThe lesson of Saxena is to understand the elements of similar causes
tery cause of action. In addition, the court of appeal ordered the lower of action. Reading major cases and consulting model jury instructions
court to reconsider the motion to apply the MICRA damages cap. The can help identify elements that are prone to confusion. These steps
result was that the $12.1 million in noneconomic damages became will help identify the word choices that can mean the difference
a target for MICRA’s cap of $250,000.4
between $250,000 and $12.1 million.
■
Attorneys seeking to understand this result may read the major
cases on point to help distinguish between the two closely related 1 See CIV. CODE §3333.2.
causes of action. California courts have provided guidance in dis- 2 Perry v. Shaw, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 70, 73-4 (2001).
3
tinguishing between the risks and nature of a medical procedure. In 4 Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 239-40 (1972).
Saxena v. Goffney, 159 Cal. App. 4th 316 (2008).
Bereky v. Anderson, the court of appeal held that the defendant 5
Bereky v. Anderson, 1 Cal. App. 3d 790, 795-805 (1969).
could be liable for battery when the plaintiff was not informed that 6 Cobbs, 8 Cal. 3d at 241.
a spinal puncture was part of a proposed treatment. The issue for med- 7 CACI No. 530A, 533.
ical battery was not whether the defendant should have told the 8 Saxena, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 325 n.4.
plaintiff of the risk of injury but whether the defendant gave the plaintiff sufficient information as to the nature of the treatment so that the Jonathan Howell is an associate at Kamel and Maxwell in Los Angeles speplaintiff could intelligently decide whether to undergo such an inva- cializing in medical malpractice and civil litigation defense. He would like to
sive procedure.5 After the ruling in Bereky, a new cause of action thank attorneys Karla Pleitez, Edward Howell, and John Maxwell for providemerged: negligent failure to obtain informed consent.
ing editorial comments for this article.
practice tips
BY ROBERT E. WILLIAMS
RICHARD EWING
The Role of Completion Guaranties in Construction Lending
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT in the United States is financed, to a great
extent, with borrowed money. When lenders are uncertain about future
market conditions, they make fewer loans. When lenders constrict the
flow of lending, the resultant lack of liquidity causes a slowdown in
transaction volume and drives real estate prices down. The decline
in property values makes lenders even more reluctant to lend. As a
result, the attention of lenders today is focused less upon making new
loans and more upon being repaid for the loans that are presently outstanding.
One hedge against the higher risk of nonpayment created in
uncertain times is the guaranty. The most basic and popular form of
guaranty is the payment guaranty. If a guarantor in California is not
the borrower itself,1 an alter ego of the borrower,2 or an entity that
has direct personal liability for the obligations of the borrower (such
as a general partner of a borrower that is a limited partnership),3 and
if the guaranty is properly drafted to include waivers of suretyship
and antideficiency-related defenses,4 then the lender will be able to
obtain a judgment on the guaranty for amounts owed by the borrower
and not realized through foreclosure.
If the lender is financing the construction of improvements, an additional guaranty is available: the completion guaranty. In its most rudimentary form, a completion guaranty is a promise by the guarantor
that the borrower will perform the obligations it undertakes, pursuant
to the loan documents, to complete construction of specified improvements on the real property collateral, and that the completion guarantor will perform the borrower’s obligations if the borrower fails to
do so.
Lenders in California whose loans are secured with real estate have
special reasons to use payment and performance recovery guaranties.
Unlike lenders in most other states, California real estate-secured
lenders cannot sue directly upon a promissory note to recover the debt
without jeopardizing their rights with respect to the real property collateral. If the lender wants to recover a monetary award directly from
the borrower, the lender must run the gauntlet of California’s antideficiency and one-form-of-action rules.
The effect of the one-form-of-action rule is that, when a lender’s
loan is secured by a deed of trust on real property, the only action a
lender can properly bring to collect on the loan from a borrower is
one for recovery of the debt that includes a count for a court-supervised foreclosure of the deed of trust.5 Judicial foreclosure involves
a full-blown lawsuit, complete with complaint, answer, motions,
discovery, and trial. Needless to say, it is time-consuming and expensive for a lender to pursue such a lawsuit to completion.
Following the trial, the antideficiency laws govern the ability of
the lender to recover a deficiency judgment (i.e., a judgment for
recovery of any balance of the defaulted debt that remains owing after
application of foreclosure sale proceeds).6 The deficiency recovery will
be limited to the lesser of the actual deficiency or the difference
between the foreclosure sale price and the fair market value of the foreclosed property as established through a fair value hearing.7 A lender
who is successful at this stage can obtain a judgment for the deficiency.
Next comes the process of actually collecting money, although
another problem remains. If a deficiency is established, the borrower
will have a statutory right to redeem the property from foreclosure
by tendering the foreclosure sale price within one year after the foreclosure sale date.8 The existence of this right of redemption puts a substantial chill on the ability of the lender to resell the foreclosed real
estate.
Thus, the lender who resorts to judicial foreclosure in order to make
a full recovery of its defaulted loan must make significant expenditures of time and money that are likely to end with a reduced value
of the foreclosed property. As result, California real estate lenders are
rarely willing to go through the judicial foreclosure process that is necessary to establish a deficiency judgment against the borrower.
Robert E. Williams is a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
in Los Angeles who specializes in real property finance. He gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Allison Twist Underwood, an associate at
Sheppard Mullin, and Roger Steinbeck, a summer associate in 2007.
THE NEXT GENERATION
of
GREAT LAWYERS
is coming.
They’re smart. They’re talented. They’re coming from
University of La Verne College of Law.
As the only ABA-approved* law school in Inland Southern California,
the University of La Verne College of Law is recognized as a progressive
school, teaching legal theory, advocacy, and practical skills necessary for
success in public law, private practice, and business. With a well-respected,
practice-proven faculty and a prominent and supportive alumni network,
the College of Law provides a unique environment for its students.
• only ABA-approved* law school in Inland Southern California
A•great source of legal talent for internships and clerkships
Support
•
for legal professionals seeking to further their
professional education
A•local campus where our brightest legal minds
can study law on a full- or part-time basis
To find out more, visit us online at
http://law.ulv.edu
or call (877) 858-4529.
* The University of La Verne College of Law has been provisionally approved by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association since February 13, 2006.
The Section of Legal Education may be contacted at 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610 or by phone at (312) 988-6738.
As a result of the difficulties associated
with judicial foreclosure, the road to remedies
more often traveled by California real estatesecured lenders is exercise of the private
power of sale contained in the deed of trust,
culminating in a trustee’s sale of the property
collateral. This private, nonjudicial foreclosure process is governed by the California
Civil Code.9 It can result in a foreclosure
sale in as little as three months and 21 days,
and it is inexpensive in comparison to a lawsuit for judicial foreclosure. When the trustee’s
sale takes place, it is final, and there is no
statutory right of redemption. But this efficiency and finality come at a cost: the
California antideficiency rules10 provide that
the lender has no right, following the trustee’s
sale, to obtain a deficiency judgment against
the borrower.
In view of the hurdles placed in the path
to recovery of money by the one-form-ofaction and antideficiency rules, it makes
sense for California construction lenders to
seek assurance that the improvements that
are financed with the proceeds of their loans
will actually be built. After all, construction lenders underwrite their loans on the
basis of the value of the real property collateral as improved with the buildings and
other improvements to be financed with the
proceeds of the construction loan. The construction lender sizes its loan in accordance
with a loan-to-value ratio that compares
the amount of the loan to the projected
value of the improved real property, as determined by an appraisal of the prospective
value of the property in its fully improved
state. To the extent that the borrower fails
to complete the improvements, a gap will be
revealed between collateral value and the
amount of the loan. It makes sense to close
this gap by obtaining a guaranty of completion of construction.
In the minds of most construction lenders,
a completion guaranty operates in just this
way and, for this reason, construction lenders
make frequent use of completion guaranties.
Many construction lenders believe that, in the
unhappy event of a borrower’s failure to
complete construction, the lender will be able
to force the guarantor to finish the improvements.
However, the seminal case on this issue
makes it clear that the remedies provided to
a construction lender by a completion guaranty do not work in the manner envisioned
by most lenders. In fact, the remedies are
quite complex and difficult to implement. In
view of the widespread use of completion
guaranties, it is, at first impression, surprising that there is very little case law in California with respect to their enforcement. It
seems fair to assume that one reason for the
dearth of reported cases dealing with com14 Los Angeles Lawyer November 2008
pletion guaranties is that completion guaranties are not often enforced.
Marina View
The leading California case on completion
guaranties, Glendale Federal Savings & Loan
Association v. Marina View Heights Development Company, Inc.,11 was decided more
than 30 years ago, and the law established in
that case has never been substantially revised
or reconsidered. The case involved two
loans—one fully disbursed, and one only
partially disbursed, at the time of default—
and two completion guaranties. It is important for any practitioner who uses completion
guaranties to become familiar with the rules
for their enforcement as announced in Marina
View.
First (and most significantly, in dealing
with the widely held perception of the completion guaranty as a device to ensure that
construction of improvements will occur), it
should be noted that the issue before the
court in Marina View was only the measure
of damages that could be awarded for breach
of a completion guaranty. The court did not
even consider whether the completion guarantors could be compelled to complete the
improvements. Thus, the first lesson that
emerges from a consideration of Marina View
is implicit: A court will not specifically enforce
the obligation of a completion guarantor to
construct improvements. Courts are, in general, reluctant to become embroiled, through
the exercise of equitable powers, in administration of a complex business transaction.
This reluctance certainly makes sense in
the context of a construction financing. It is
hard to imagine a court supervising the
progress of construction. Monitoring the
quality and progress of construction of
improvements is a task for which construction lenders depend upon specially trained
employees or outside contractors. A court
that sought to engage in such supervision
would probably need to appoint special
receivers or other officers and would need to
follow the progress of construction through
a protracted series of hearings. A California
trial court is unlikely to grant such relief in
the context of a defaulted private construction financing. Thus, the remedy available
to a construction lender under a completion
guaranty is not the equitable remedy of specific performance of completion of construction but an action for money damages.
The second lesson of Marina View is how
to measure damages available to a construction lender under a defaulted completion
guaranty. The Marina View court drew a distinction between damages available to lenders
and to owners. Glendale Federal Savings and
Loan Association, the lender in Marina View,
foreclosed upon the real property collateral
by power of sale and sought to recover from
the completion guarantors the cost of the
unfinished construction work. The court held
that recovery was not allowed:
The proper measure of damages for
breach of a contract to construct
improvements on real property where
the work is to be done on plaintiff’s
property is ordinarily the reasonable
cost to the plaintiff of completing the
work and not the difference between
the value of the property and its value
had the improvements been constructed.…A different rule applies,
however, where improvements are to
be made on property not owned by the
injured party.…Glendale’s interest in
the land was solely that of a secured
lender.…The measure of damages,
therefore, is the value which the
improvements, had they been completed, would have added to the security because that is the contractual
benefit of which Glendale was
deprived.12
Glendale argued that its damages should
not be limited as a result of the fact that it was
a lender with a deed of trust on the property,
rather than an owner. It pointed out that it
became an owner as a result of foreclosure of
its deed of trust. But the Marina View court
rejected this argument:
It is a settled principle that general
damages that may be awarded for
breach of contract are ordinarily confined to those which would naturally
arise from the breach, or which might
have been reasonably contemplated
or foreseen by the parties at the time
they contracted, as the probable result
of the breach.…At the time the loan
transaction was entered into, [the borrower’s agreement to construct the
improvements and the guarantors’]
guaranty were intended as additional
security devices only, not a contract to
construct improvements on Glendale’s
land.13
Here, the Marina View court’s reasoning
is very hard to follow. A limitation of damages to those that are foreseeable at the time
of entry into the contract is a solid proposition, but it certainly seems that a completion
guarantor should foresee that a deed of trust
on real property may be foreclosed upon
default in the obligation secured, and that the
lender may become the new owner. Why
does a construction lender take a deed of
trust to secure the loan obligation, if not to
obtain either ownership of the property, or the
cash paid at foreclosure by a competing bidder? But the holding in Marina View is clear:
The measure of damages is the loss of value
that results from failure to complete con-
You’ve Invested A Lot in Your Law Practice.
First-Rate Professional Liability
Protection Is A Must!
** COVERAGE FEATURES **
✔ Unlimited Extended Reporting
AUTOMATIC:
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Periods Available
Vicarious Liability Protection
✔ Provisions for Death Disability and
Claims Made Coverage
Retirement
Duty to Defend
✔ Rule 11 Sanctions $10,000
✔ 50% Reduction of Deductible for the
Consent to Settle
Personal Injury (Broad Form)
Defendants Reimbursement $10,000
Per Claim
✔ No Deductible
✔ Disciplinary Proceeding $10,000 per
Policy Period No Deductible
✔ Prior Law Firm Coverage
Use of Mediation or Arbitration to
Resolve Claim
OPTIONAL:
✔ First Dollar Defense
✔ Additional Limit for Claims Expense
✔ Aggregate Deductible
No Other Company Gives You This Much Coverage
At A Premium You Can Afford
This Program Can Not Be Accessed By Your Local Broker. You Must Apply Directly To:
FIRST INDEMNITY INSURANCE AGENCY INC.
CA License #OC60203
www.firstindemnity.net • [email protected]
BOSTON
41 West Street
5th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Phone (617) 426-4500
Fax (617) 426-6656
LOS ANGELES
1800 Century Park East
Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90076
Phone (800) 982-1151
Fax (800) 797-1897
DALLAS
5956 Sherry Lane
Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75225
Phone (800) 982-1151
Fax (800) 797-1897
NEW YORK
420 Lexington Ave.
Suite 300
New York, NY 10170
Phone (800) 982-1151
Fax (800) 797-1897
CHICAGO
10 South Riverside Plaza
Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone (800) 982-1151
Fax (800) 797-1897
TAMPA
2202 N Westshore Blvd.
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone (800) 982-1151
Fax (800) 797-1897
*State National Insurance Company is a licensed admitted carrier in the state of California.
*Licensed and Admitted in all 50 States
struction, not the lender’s cost of completing
construction.
A construction lender seeking to enforce
a completion guarantee is not home free,
however, even with a showing that the completion of improvements that are the subject
of the completion guaranty would have made
the collateral more valuable. As noted above,
the court in Marina View dealt with two
loans and two completion guaranties. It came
to two different conclusions regarding liability, finding the guarantors liable with
respect to one guaranty but not liable with
respect to the other. The distinction drawn by
the court between the two guaranties focused
upon whether the construction lender was
fully secured with respect to its loan, irrespective of whether the obligation to construct improvements was performed:
“Glendale was entitled to damages only to the
extent noncompletion of the improvements
impaired its security interest. If Glendale had
been fully secured on the date of foreclosure,
it would have suffered no injury by reason of
the failure to construct the improvements
and would not have been entitled to damages.”14 As to one of the loans, the court
found that the lender did not sustain damage
as a result of failure to complete the improvements, because the lender was “fully secured”
even without completion of the improvements.15 The court did not elaborate on the
approach to determination of whether the
lender is fully secured. Construction lenders
typically make loans at less than a 100 percent ratio of amount of loan to value of collateral (loan-to-value ratio). But here, the
Marina View court seems content to merge
the roles of the lender as lender and as owner,
and it seems that the finding of “full security”
is based upon a comparison of the lender’s
outstanding loan amount with the appraised
value of the property in the hands of the
lender, following foreclosure.16
The loan as to which the Marina View
court found that the construction lender was
fully secured was not fully disbursed.
However, because of its finding that the lender
was fully secured, the court did not reach
the issue of the effect of undisbursed loan proceeds upon the calculation of damages available under the completion guaranty. It seems
fair to assume, however, that if a construction
lender had not fully disbursed the proceeds of
its loan that were allocated for the funding of
the guaranteed works of improvement, and
if the construction lender is eligible for the
recovery of damages because it is held not to
be fully secured, then the damages to the
lender should be offset by the amount of
loan proceeds not disbursed. This offset is a
reasonable tradeoff, since the construction
lender contracts to fund construction of
improvements; hence, the construction lender
expects to fully disburse the proceeds of its
loan in exchange for completion of the
improvements.
In view of the foregoing, the damages
available to a construction lender under a
completion guaranty can be formulated as
follows:
The damages available to a lender
under a completion guaranty equal the
value of the project with improvements completed minus the sum of (a)
the value of the project in its current
state plus (b) undisbursed loan proceeds; provided that no damages will
be available if the lender’s loan is adequately secured irrespective of failure
to complete improvements.17
This damage formula, derived from
Marina View, is relatively simple. However,
the formula represents the tip of a rather formidable iceberg of judicial procedure. To
understand it, a comparison should be made
of the judicial procedures required for enforcement of payment guaranties and enforcement of completion guaranties. Enforcement
of a payment guaranty is a relatively simple
matter: In the typical case of a payment guaranty executed concurrently with execution of
the loan documents,18 the lender probably
needs only to prove both the existence of the
debt and the existence of the default, and to
authenticate the guaranty. In order to establish a right to damages under a completion
guaranty in light of the rules established in
Marina View, the lender has a lot more work
to do. The lender must prove the value of the
property in its current state and the value
that the property would have had if it were
improved. This latter value is speculative and
cannot be derived by simple application of a
capitalization rate to the results of actual
operations of the property. All of this will
require appraisal testimony, and a completion
guarantor wishing to defend against liability
will be free to summon its own appraiser.
This is the stuff of a fully contested lawsuit,
with qualification of appraisers as expert witnesses, discovery, direct examination, and
cross-examination. Conduct of a lawsuit
involving this level of evidentiary complexity
is likely to take a long time and cost a lot of
money.
The Real Benefits of Completion
Guaranties
The net results of Marina View are that the
remedies available under a completion guaranty are not what they appear to be from the
face of the completion guaranty document,
and that those remedies are not aligned with
the expectations of the construction lender.
Does this mean that a completion guaranty
is useless? Certainly not, but practitioners
should educate themselves as to the limitations
on those rights and remedies and, armed
with that knowledge, reconsider both the use
of completion guaranties and the drafting of
completion guaranties when they are used.
It may not be particularly useful to obtain
a completion guaranty from a deep-pocket
guarantor who is willing to give a full payment guaranty. A payment guaranty, when
given by a guarantor who possesses sufficient assets, can cause the lender’s loan to be
fully repaid. The lender who is lucky enough
to find such a guarantor needs only a payment
guaranty for full protection. Where the guarantor’s assets are not sufficient to pay off the
loan, it will still be easier for the lender to
obtain a judgment on a payment guaranty
than it will be to obtain judgment on a completion guaranty.
On the other hand, if the guarantor is
unable or unwilling to provide a payment
guaranty, a completion guaranty may make
sense. The construction lender makes its loan
in reliance upon the increase in collateral
value that will be provided by the construction of improvements, and a risk for the
lender is that this increase in value will not
occur because of a failure to complete construction. If the lender cannot address its
loan exposure directly by obtaining a payment
guaranty, addressing construction risk
through a completion guaranty may be the
next best thing.
If the construction lender chooses to
obtain a completion guaranty, the lender and
its counsel need to take into account some
practical issues not considered in the Marina
View opinion. Specifically, lenders and their
counsel should consider what rights the completion guarantor should have in any undisbursed loan proceeds, and what conditions
should be imposed to disbursement of those
proceeds to the completion guarantor in order
to fund completion. Because the construction lender’s bargain entails full construction
of improvements in exchange for full disbursement of loan proceeds, it is fair for the
completion guarantor to require the construction lender to make undisbursed loan
proceeds available in the event the guarantor
elects to actually construct improvements—
and the lender’s damage remedy will be offset by the amount of undisbursed loan proceeds in any event. A well-drafted completion
guaranty should incorporate the same conditions to disbursement that appear in the
construction loan agreement (e.g., periodic
requisitions, disbursement in accordance with
a preapproved line item budget, an obligation
to keep the loan in balance by depositing
funds with the lender, retention of some percentage of loan proceeds pending completion, maintenance of payment and performance bonds, and so on).
In addition, the lender should remember
that disbursements of the loan increase the
debt of the borrower and the lien upon the
borrower’s property. Does the lender have
the ability to make such disbursements to
the completion guarantor absent a request for
the same by the borrower? What if the borrower is bankrupt? In view of these concerns, it is wise to include, among the conditions to the lender’s obligation to disburse,
receipt by the lender of a requisition from the
borrower or its legal representative.
Because of the gap between likely expectations of the parties and the rule of damages
announced in Marina View, it is a good practice for the completion guaranty to explicitly
lay out the remedies available to the lender in
the event of default. A concise statement of
the damage formula would facilitate a meeting of the minds as to the obligations undertaken by the completion guarantor and would
enhance certainty of enforcement. Spelling out
the remedies available need not be viewed as
a concession by the construction lender. After
all, a description of the measure of damages
will be consistent with applicable law, and will
make it clear to even the most recalcitrant
completion guarantor that it faces the
prospect of a complex lawsuit and damages
if it does not complete the improvements.
Another good idea would be to establish
a mechanism for the selection of an appraiser
who will make the determinations of value
that are required in order to implement the
damages rule from Marina View and to specify the appraisal methodology that is to be
used in making those determinations. In order
to address the offset for undisbursed loan
funds in a precise way, the completion guaranty can specify that only those undisbursed
funds that are specifically allocated to funding of the guaranteed improvements—and
not those allocated to other improvements, or
to funding of construction-period interest or
other reserves—should give rise to an offset.
therefore, to include reimbursement of the
costs of such construction activity of the
lender—whether incurred before or after
foreclosure—among the obligations of the
completion guarantor. Costs for which the
completion guarantor could be obligated
under this approach would include the full
range of items includable as protective
advances, including costs of hiring replacement contractors, subcontractors, and design
professionals; costs of obtaining payment,
performance, and lien release bonds; costs of
procuring insurance; and costs of appointment
of a receiver.
It would be nice if construction lenders
could say that when they use a completion
guaranty, it means just what they “choose it
to mean—neither more nor less.”19 The problem is that, in view of the applicable California
law, a completion guaranty is both less and
more than most construction lenders would
choose it to mean. Counsel armed with
knowledge of the disparity between appearance and reality may be able to bring more
certainty and predictability to the use of this
basic construction loan document.
■
1 Engelman
v. Gordon, 242 Cal. App. 2d 510 (1966);
Everts v. Matteson, 21 Cal. 2d 437 (1942).
2 Valinda Builders v. Bissner, 230 Cal. App. 2d 106
(1964); Torrey Pines Bank v. Hoffman, 231 Cal. App.
3d 308 (1991); Cadle Co. II v. Harvey, 83 Cal. App.
4th 927 (2000).
3 Riddle v. Lushing, 203 Cal. App. 2d 831 (1962);
Union Bank v. Dorn, 254 Cal. App. 2d 157 (1967).
4 Union Bank v. Gradsky, 265 Cal. App. 2d 40 (1968);
Cathay Bank v. Lee, 14 Cal. App. 4th 1533 (1993); CIV.
CODE §2856.
5 CODE CIV. PROC. §726. Strictly speaking, the borrower
can compel the lender to style any collection action as
a judicial foreclosure upon the real property encumbered by the deed of trust. However, the lender who
violates the one-action rule is just as likely not to get
a second chance. Bank of Am. v. Daily, 152 Cal. App.
3d 767 (1984); Security Pac. Nat’l Bank v. Wozab, 51
Cal. 3d 991 (1990).
6 CODE CIV. PROC. §§580b, 580d.
7 CODE CIV. PROC. §726.
8 CODE CIV. PROC. §729.030.
9 CIV. CODE §§2924 et seq.
10 CODE CIV. PROC. §580d.
11 Glendale Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n v. Marina View
Heights Dev. Co., Inc., 66 Cal. App. 3d 101 (1977).
12 Id. at 123-24.
13 Id. at 125.
14 Id. at 124.
15 Id. at 128.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 123-25, 127-28. For a thorough analysis of the
elements of damages under Marina View and a compelling critique of the court’s distinction between the
measure of damages applicable to owners and that
applicable to secured lenders, see Timothy O’Brien,
Completion Guarantees: Misnamed and Misunderstood, 12 CAL. REAL PROP. J. 1 (Fall 1994).
18 CIV. CODE §2792.
19 LEWIS CARROLL, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS,
available at http://www.literature.org/authors/carrolllewis/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-06.html.
Specific Amounts
Although one cannot be sure of its enforceability, a further drafting solution suggests
itself. In stating the elements of damages for
which the completion guarantor may be
liable, it would be a good idea to include
amounts expended by the lender or its agents
in causing construction to be completed. It is
true that the Marina View court disallowed
the recovery by the lender of the costs of
completion, on the basis of the distinction it
drew between owners and lenders. But that
distinction is the shakiest part of the holding
in Marina View. It is very much in line with
the expectations of the parties to a construction financing that the construction
lender, when faced with a default, may need
to step in and cause construction to be completed in order to minimize its loss. It is fair,
There is no substitute for experience.
Over 1,250 successful mediations
14 years as a full-time mediator
92% of cases resolved
Director, Pepperdine Law School’s
“Mediating the Litigated Case” program
LEE JAY BERMAN, Mediator
213.383.0438 •• www.LeeJayBerman.com
Los Angeles Lawyer November 2008 17
practice tips
BY GARY A. GLICK AND SCOTT L. GROSSFELD
Applying Reciprocal Easement Agreements to Retail Projects
RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENTS (REAs) are commonly used
in retail development when neighboring property owners want to
develop their respective properties as one integrated shopping center.
Often when more than one owner develops a shopping center, one of
the owners acts as developer and the other is a major retailer (for example, Target, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or Kohl’s). Although the developer may lease a portion of the property to the major retailer (in which
case an REA will not necessarily be warranted, since the lease will provide for construction, operation, and management), if the retailer
desires to purchase a portion of the property, it will be necessary for
the developer and the major retailer to enter into an REA. It is used
to detail the parties’ contractual agreement on such things as the construction of the shopping center, the architectural compatibility of the
buildings, the use of the common area, and restrictions on use.
Many of the parties’ respective rights, as detailed in the REA, are
considered easements,1 since they effectively allow one party nonexclusive use2 of the property of the other. The REA is usually a
recorded document,3 and the contractual obligations set forth in the
REA typically run with the land4 of the property encumbered by it.
Without an REA, the major retailer (or developer) could potentially
build whatever it desired whenever it desired; prevent the developer
from using any part of the major retailer’s parcel for parking, access,
or utility lines;5 or put its space to an incompatible use.
In this regard, an REA may be viewed as taking the place of a lease
and the rights and obligations it typically sets forth between a developer and a major retailer. However, in most cases the major retailer
will not view the two as being the same. The major retailer may view
its ownership of a portion of the shopping center as giving it greater
rights and fewer obligations than a lease. For example, a major
retailer may want the unilateral right to lease its property to any other
user following its acquisition of a portion of the shopping center,
whereas if it leased the property, it would most likely allow the
developer landlord the right to consent to certain assignments or sublets. However, without an REA that contains many of the same provisions normally contained in a lease, the operation of a shopping center that many parties own may be chaotic and ineffective.
To avoid the problem of having too many parties running a
shared property, a typical retail REA sets forth many issues affecting
the developer and retailer. An REA may be a two-party agreement (e.g.,
between the developer and the major retailer) or involve three or more
parties (e.g., between the developer and multiple retailers). In addition, an REA may be between nonretailer property owners that want
to jointly develop their respective properties for retail or other purposes (e.g., industrial, warehousing, or office). This type of REA is
less common and deals with some but not all of the same issues that
are usually covered in an REA between a developer and a major
retailer. The typical two-party REA between a developer and a
retailer addresses, among other things: 1) easements for parking,
access, encroachments, and utilities, 2) construction and architectural
compatibility, 3) operation of common areas, 4) taxes, building
maintenance, and building insurance, 5) use, recapture rights, and
rights of first offer, 6) covenants running with the land, term, and
amendments, and 7) mortgagee protection provisions.
Parking, access, encroachments, and utilities. The REA should
provide both parties with at least the most basic rights for their
respective properties, so that they may be operated in harmony.
Each party should have the right to access the other party’s property
for vehicular parking and pedestrian access. For instance, the customers
and employees of the major retailer (and operators on the developer’s property) will need the right to park anywhere they want within
the shopping center (subject to an agreement by the parties to provide special areas for employee parking) and to walk anywhere they
want within the shopping center. Customers of the occupants of the
shopping center should view the property as being owned by one party
and operated as a fully integrated shopping center (even though the
property is owned by two or more different parties). Each party
may also need the right to connect to the other parties’ utility systems
(typically the major retailer ties into the developer’s utility systems for
the shopping center). This enables utilities to be brought to each occupant’s premises by using another party’s utility mains or conduits and
avoiding duplication of facilities and work. The parties may also need
certain encroachment rights if their canopies or foundations minimally
encroach upon the other party’s property.
Construction and architectural compatibility. The REA will typically require that the developer construct all the on- and off-site
improvements for the shopping center, as well as the buildings to be
located on the developer’s property. Similarly, the REA will commonly
require the major retailer to be responsible for the construction of its
building. The REA will typically provide rights for a party to review
and approve the plans and specifications of the other party’s work,
thereby creating a way to ensure architectural compatibility for the
construction work. In addition, the REA will often require that each
party construct its improvements pursuant to a mutually approved
construction schedule. Depending on the nature of the deal, the REA
(or a separate development agreement) will require that the major
retailer reimburse the developer for an equitable share of the costs
incurred by the developer to construct the shopping center’s on- and
off-site improvements.
Operation of common areas. The REA should require that at
least one party operates, insures, and maintains the common areas
of the shopping center.6 The party with this responsibility is usually
the developer or a third-party manager appointed by the developer.
The manager should be obligated to keep the common areas in a neat,
clean, and attractive condition, and then to charge the parties to the
REA for their respective prorated shares of common area costs. If the
Gary A. Glick and Scott L. Grossfeld are partners in the Los Angeles office of
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP and head the firm’s Retail Practice Group. The
authors specialize in shopping center development and commercial leasing.
They thank Gloria J. Lee for her research assistance with this article.
developer does a poor job operating and maintaining the common area, the major retailer
often has the right to take over the operation
and maintenance of the common areas located
on its property, although sometimes this
takeover right may apply to the entire common
area in the shopping center. Instead of one
party being responsible for the operation of the
common areas, sometimes an REA will provide
for each party to be responsible for its own portion of the shopping center. Again, in this case,
the REA should require that such operation
and maintenance meet certain standards of
quality, failing which the other party will have
certain well-specified remedies.
Taxes, building maintenance, and building insurance. REAs usually require each
property owner to pay the property taxes
that relate to its respective property. In addition, each party is typically required to maintain the appearance of the buildings on its
property in an attractive manner. Each party
may also be required to maintain first-party
insurance on the buildings located on its
property (note, however, that in the event of
a casualty, each party is usually given the
right to raze the building improvements
located on its own property or to rebuild
them to their former condition). Regardless
of a party’s responsibility for buildings on its
property, most REAs require that common
area improvements located on a party’s property be rebuilt following a casualty. Although
this obligation is typically the responsibility
of the developer, in some cases it may be the
responsibility of each property owner.
Use, recapture rights, and rights of first
offer. Some REAs may require the major
retailer to use its property for a particular use
or, in turn, restrict uses on the developer for
the benefit of the major retailer.7 In the event
that the major retailer is required to make a
particular use of its property and ceases to do
so for a specified period (usually six months,
but often subject to extension for remodels,
casualties, or other events outside the control
of the major retailer), the developer may be
given the right to purchase the major retailer’s property for its fair market value or other
negotiated price. In theory, this gives the
developer the right to control its real estate
or to lease or sell the major retailer’s property
to a user that will use its property for a retail
use compatible with the remainder of the
shopping center. The REA may also provide
that in the event that either party desires to
sell its property to an unaffiliated third party,
the other party will have, for a short time, a
right of first offer to purchase the selling party’s property. In other words, the selling party
has an obligation to undergo good faith negotiations with the other party to the REA
before selling the property to the unaffiliated third party. If either a right to purchase
or a right of first offer is contained in the REA,
the buying party should be required to pay a
price that is agreeable to both parties. In the
event that the parties are unable to reach an
agreement on price within a short time, the
party desiring to sell its property would have
the right to sell it to the unaffiliated third
party. However, the REA may require the
selling party to again offer the property for
sale to the other party if it is unable to sell the
property within a specified time for a price
equal to or greater than 95 percent of the purchase price offered by the other party.
Covenants running with the land, term,
and amendments. The REA should specifically provide that the rights and obligations
set forth in the REA run with the land of the
property subject to the REA.8 In other words,
the entity owning the property that is subject
to the REA will be subject to the terms and
provisions set forth in the REA. In addition,
the REA should specifically provide for the
term of the REA and the method by which the
REA may be amended.9 The REA should
provide that the easements necessary for a
party to access the public streets surrounding
the shopping center and to use the shopping
center utility systems run in perpetuity. This
will most likely be required by the governing
body with jurisdiction over the property as a
condition to the recordation of the subdivision map creating the parcels that are subject
to the REA. In some REAs, the parties agree
that the easements for parking will run in perpetuity. Typically, the REA cannot be
amended without the approval of the developer and the major retailer. However, the
REA should be clear as to which parties have
this approval right if one party’s property is
subsequently subdivided into multiple properties or owned by multiple parties.
Mortgagee protection provisions. The
REA should contain provisions for the benefit of the lender of each party to the REA. In
the event of a default by one party to the REA,
the nondefaulting party should be obligated
to notify the defaulting party’s lender (to the
extent it has been given notice of the lender)
and allow the lender to cure the default. In
addition, the REA should provide that a
breach of any of the covenants or restrictions contained in the REA will not defeat or
render invalid the lien of any lender made in
good faith and for value as to the shopping
center or any part thereof.10
Shopping center REAs are understandable when they are viewed as a substitution
for the operational provisions of a lease
between a developer and a major retailer.
Although an REA will not contain the same
types of provisions found in a lease, many of
the concepts are the same. As with a lease, the
REA ensures that the developer’s property and
the major retailer’s property are operated as
one integrated shopping center so as to maximize the success of the shopping center for
all parties and to avoid waste and inefficiencies.
■
1 An easement is a nonpossessory interest in the land
of another that gives the owner of the easement the right
to use the land of the other person or to prevent the
other property owner from using the land. Mehdizadeh
v. Mincer, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1296, 1306 (1996). The
extent of an easement is determined by the terms of the
grant in the REA. CIV. CODE §806. When an easement
is founded on a grant, only those interests expressed
therein and necessary for its reasonable and proper
enjoyment pass from the owner of the fee. Pasadena v.
California-Michigan Land & Water Co., 17 Cal. 2d
576, 579 (1941).
2 An easement is nonexclusive unless expressed otherwise. An exclusive easement is unusual as it almost
amounts to a conveyance of the fee. Keeler v. Haky, 160
Cal. App. 2d 471, 474-75 (1958).
3 For the contractual obligations (or covenants) contained in an REA to run with the land and be binding
on successive owners, the REA must be recorded in the
Office of the Recorder of each county in which the land
is situated. CIV. CODE §1468(d).
4 Civil Code §1460 defines covenants running with
the land as “certain covenants, contained in grants of
estates in real property, [that] are appurtenant to such
estates, and pass with them, so as to bind the assigns
of the covenantor and to vest in the assigns of the
covenantee, in the same manner as if they had personally entered into them.”
5 Easements expressly created through an REA should
be restricted to the specific, limited, and definable use
or activity contemplated by the parties because the
extent of the easements are determined by the terms of
the grant or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was
acquired. CIV. CODE §806.
6 The owner of the property burdened by the easement
has no obligation to maintain or repair the easement
unless the parties enter into an agreement that alters
their legal responsibilities and imposes an obligation of
maintenance on the servient tenement owner. Herzog
v. Grosso, 41 Cal. 2d 219, 228 (1953). The owner of
an easement has the statutory duty to maintain and
repair the easement. CIV. CODE §845.
7 Also known as an exclusive use provision, this is
essentially a covenant not to permit other occupants of
the shopping center to operate a business that would
compete with the business of the major retailer. For case
law discussing the legality of such limited constraints
on trade, see Great Western Distillery Prods., Inc. v.
Wathen Distillery Co., 10 Cal. 2d 442, 448-49 (1937);
Martikian v. Hong, 164 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1134
(1985); Borman, Inc. v. Great Scott Super Markets, Inc.,
433 F. Supp. 343, 349-51 (E.D. Mich. 1975); and
Optivision, Inc. v. Syracuse Shopping Center Assocs.,
472 F. Supp. 665, 674-81 (N.D. N.Y. 1979). See also
Jeffrey N. Brown, Use Provisions in Commercial
Leases, LOS ANGELES LAWYER, Jan. 2006, at 21.
8 The requirements for the covenants in the REA to run
with the land are set forth in Civil Code §1468.
9 As a general rule, restrictions on land may be amended
or terminated by the execution of a mutual agreement
signed by all the property owners subject to the restrictions. R ESTATEMENT (F IRST ) OF P ROPERTY §557.
However, the parties may also agree to an expiration
date or modified procedures in the REA.
10 For sample mortgagee protection provisions in the
analogous area of landlord-tenant retail leasing, see
Gary Glick, Estelle Braaf & Tamar Stein, Default and
Remedies, in R ETAIL L EASING —D RAFTING AND
NEGOTIATING THE LEASE §27.55-27.56, 777-79 (CEB
2007).
by Michael R. Sohigian
BY
ACCIDENT
Two cases pending before the
California Supreme Court will address
liability insurance coverage for accidental
consequences of intentional acts
t may seem like a truism that liability insurance only covers accidents. But it’s not always true. In certain nonaccidental circumstances, including alleged assaults and batteries committed in self-defense, California’s courts have
consistently held that insurers are duty bound to defend policyholders. Two cases now before the California Supreme
Court, Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange and Jafari v. EMC Insurance Companies, raise a related issue: When
a liability policy covers injury arising from an “occurrence,” which is defined as an “accident,” does the insurer
have a duty to defend an action for assault if the complaint alleges the insured was acting under an unreasonable and
negligent belief that he or she was acting in self-defense?1 The outcome may alter decades-old authority concerning coverage for unexpected and unintended damages of intentional acts.
Much litigation over the issue has been and continues to be waged. In fact, after the supreme court granted the insurers’ petitions for review in Delgado and Jafari, the Second District Court of Appeal handed down two decisions addressing insurers’ duty to defend claims for alleged intentional acts. In one, the court of appeal continued to apply a strict standard to intentional acts of a sexual nature and held that the insurer was not obligated to defend the insured against such
claims.2 In the other, more recent decision, the court distinguished an alleged intentional act from its accidental consequences, and held the insurer was obligated to defend a suit for consequential damages.3
The standard commercial (formerly comprehensive)4 general liability (CGL) policy provides coverage for “damages
because of bodily injury or property damage…caused by an occurrence.” The term “occurrence” is often defined as “an
accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The policy
Michael R. Sohigian, a sole practitioner in Los Angeles, specializes in civil litigation with an emphasis on real estate, employment, probate, insurance coverage, and public licensing.
KEN CORRAL
I
also typically provides an exclusion of coverage for “bodily injury or
property damage neither expected nor intended by the insured.”5
Additionally, Insurance Code Section 533 provides that “[a]n
insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured;
but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the
insured’s agents or others.” This deceptively simple statute is followed
by more than 40 pages of annotations. Indeed, the alleged commission of an intentional act is probably the most common ground for
an insurer’s denial of tender or reservation of rights, and policyholders and insurers have been fighting over it for at least 50 years.6
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Company is the seminal case in which
the supreme court recognized that “the carrier must defend a suit which
potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.”7 Dr.
Vernon Gray, the insured, tendered to Zurich, his insurer, a lawsuit
that had been filed against him for assault arising out of a road-rage
altercation between him and another driver.8 Gray advised Zurich that
he had acted in self-defense, after the plaintiff left his vehicle,
approached Gray’s car, and jerked open the door. Zurich denied tender on the ground that the complaint alleged an intentional tort.
The court held Zurich was obligated to defend Gray and to pay
the judgment awarded against him in the suit Gray tried and lost at
his own expense. The opinion rested on a number of legal and factual grounds. Among them were the court’s finding that Zurich’s policy failed clearly to define the application to the duty to defend of the
exclusion of coverage “for bodily injury or property damages caused
intentionally by or at the direction of the insured,” particularly in view
of coverage language promising to “pay on behalf of the insured all
sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as
damages because of bodily injury or property damage.”9
In support of its legal analysis, the Gray court cited multiple
cases for the proposition that an act that may be “intentional” or “willful” in legal terms does not necessarily fall outside insurance coverage.10 The court observed that Gray “might have been able to show
that in physically defending himself, even if he exceeded the reasonable bounds of self-defense, he did not commit willful and intended
injury, but engaged only in nonintentional tortious conduct.”11 In the
42 years since Gray was decided, courts have repeatedly cited it for
the proposition that CGL coverage may be available for intentional
acts committed under circumstances of self-defense.12
Delgado and Jafari
The Delgado case currently pending before the supreme court arises
out of allegations somewhat similar to those in Gray. Delgado is an
insurance bad faith action under Insurance Code Section 11580. In
the underlying action Delgado sued Reid, who was insured by the Auto
Club, for damages allegedly resulting from an assault and battery that,
Delgado alleged, Reid had committed, albeit unreasonably, in selfdefense. Reid tendered Delgado’s suit to the Auto Club, which
rejected it on the grounds that there was no “occurrence” but rather
an intentional, unprovoked attack that was not an accident and thus
was excluded under the terms of his policy and Section 533. Reid and
Delgado stipulated to judgment for Delgado on his claim for negligence, with a covenant not to execute and an assignment of Reid’s
claims against the Auto Club for failure to defend.13
The trial court sustained the Auto Club’s demurrer to Delgado’s
subsequent bad faith action,14 but the Second District Court of
Appeal reversed.15 The court cited no fewer than seven cases to support its conclusion that the facts alleged in the underlying action against
Reid presented the possibility of coverage under the policy.16 Those
cases included Gray and Mullen v. Glens Falls Insurance Company.
Mullen was a coverage action arising from a suit against Mullen for
alleged injuries that resulted from a fight that the court viewed as having been started—for all Mullen’s insurer could have known—by the
plaintiff, whom Mullen struck in self-defense. In holding the defen22 Los Angeles Lawyer November 2008
dant duty bound to defend its insured, the Mullen court stated, “It
is now settled that injuries resulting from acts committed by an
insured in self-defense are not ‘intended’ or ‘expected’ within the meaning of those terms as customarily used in an exclusionary clause.”17
The Delgado court also cited David Kleis, Inc. v. Superior Court,
in which the court of appeal observed, “If the insured mistakenly
believed that he had a right to defend himself, or was mistaken with
regard to the extent with which he could use force, the act would not
be intentional and coverage would exist” because “the focus [is
placed] upon the mental state of the insured when undertaking a course
of conduct.”18 The Delgado court also relied upon Grain Dealers
Mutual Insurance Company v. Marino, in which the court held an
insurer obligated to defend claims for acts that were allegedly intentional and stated, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an insured acted in selfdefense, although he intended the act, he acted by chance and without a preconceived design to inflict injury just as though he were acting
intentionally, although negligently, and injured someone.”19
About four months after the Second District issued its opinion in
Delgado, a different division of the same court published Jafari. The
plaintiff in Jafari was an individual doing business as an auto repair
shop.20 The plaintiff was sued for damages because his employee
allegedly struck a customer.21 The employee admitted he did so but
contended his action was in self-defense because he feared for his personal safety and his life.22
The plaintiff was insured under a garage operations liability policy that provided coverage for “damages because of bodily injury or
property damage…caused by an accident and resulting from garage
operations.”23 The policy did not define “accident.”24 The trial court
granted the insurer’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that
there was no coverage and thus no duty to defend.25 The court of
appeal concluded, based on existing case law, that allegedly intentional
conduct in self-defense can be deemed accidental within the coverage provision of the policy because the defensive conduct was provoked by the unexpected and unintended acts of a third party.26
The court of appeal therefore reversed summary judgment for the
insurer.27
As in Delgado, the court in Jafari cited Gray and Mullen. The Jafari
court also cited Lowell v. Maryland Casualty Company, in which the
California Supreme Court repeated its statement in Gray that “even
if the insured’s conduct may traditionally be classified as an ‘intentional’ or ‘wilful’ tort, many cases have held that such conduct falls
within the indemnification coverage.”28
Interestingly, however, the Jafari court appeared to rest its holding mostly on cases the insurance company had relied on—cases in
which no duty to defend or indemnify was found because the conduct at issue was intentional. For example, the Jafari court cited and
analyzed Merced Mutual Insurance Company v. Mendez,29 in which
the court of appeal affirmed summary judgment on the ground that
the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholder, Mendez, against allegations of intentional and negligent
assault and battery and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from acts of oral copulation and attempted
oral copulation.30
In Jafari, the court noted the Mendez court’s rejection of “the notion
it was enough for the injury to have been unintended to be deemed
an ‘accident’ within the meaning of the insuring clause,” and approvingly quoted language from Mendez:
“In terms of fortuity and/or foreseeability, both ‘the means as
well as the result must be unforeseen, involuntary, unexpected
and unusual.’ We agree coverage is not always precluded
merely because the insured acted intentionally and the victim
was injured. An accident, however, is never present when the
insured performs a deliberate act unless some additional,
unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that
produces the damage. Clearly, where the insured acted deliberately with the intent to cause injury, the conduct would not
be deemed an accident. Moreover, where the insured intended
all of the acts that resulted in the victim’s injury, the event may
not be deemed an ‘accident’ merely because the insured did
not intend to cause injury. Conversely, an ‘accident’ exists when
any aspect in the causal series of events leading to the injury
or damage was unintended by the insured and a matter of fortuity.”31
The Jafari court also distinguished Quan v. Truck Insurance
Exchange,32 another case involving allegations that the insured committed sexual assault and rape, for the same reasons it found Mendez
inapposite: “Because the sexual assault was deliberate, the Quan Court
concluded there was no ‘accident’ within the meaning of the policy
and thus no coverage.”33 It quoted language from Quan rejecting the
The Jafari court concluded that “properly viewed, even deliberate acts of self-defense in response to unexpected, unforeseen and unintended events by the third party are ‘accidents’ and give rise to the
potential for liability under the policy, and hence the obligation to provide a defense.”38
On August 3, 2007, the supreme court granted review of Delgado
and did the same for Jafari on November 12, 2007, but deferred consideration of the case pending the outcome of Delgado. The parties
(and amici) have fully briefed the Delgado case, but as of November
2008, oral argument had not been scheduled.
possibility that the insurer might be held liable for physical injuries
caused by “accidentally” touching, kissing, embracing, or having sex
with the claimant and emphasized a part of that language: “nor is there
any additional ‘happening’ to combine with these necessarily deliberate acts so as to produce an ‘accident’ giving rise to bodily injury.”34
Thus the Jafari court found “the definitions provided in [Mendez
and Quan] [did] not foreclose the possibility acts in self-defense can
be an ‘accident’ and thus fall within the coverage provision of the policy.” Indeed, the court read those opinions to “support the finding
[that] acts in self-defense can be an ‘accident’ where the third party’s
actions provoking the self-defense response were the unforeseen and
unexpected element in the causal chain of events making the insured’s
acts in self-defense unplanned and involuntary. Under these courts’
definitions,” the court reasoned, “it is the unexpectedness of the
third party’s actions which creates the ‘accident’ within the meaning
of the coverage clause.”35
In Jafari, the court understood the Gray decision as a statement
that courts must take the broad view of any incident raising the
question of self-defense when determining whether there has been an
unexpected and unintended force, or happening, in the causal chain
of events creating the “accident.” Therefore, according to Jafari,
“the third party’s actions prompting an insured to act in self-defense
are part of the causal chain of events leading to potential injury. In
the usual case the third party’s actions which prompt the need to protect self or others will be the unintended, unexpected, unplanned and
unforeseen event constituting the ‘accident.’”36 Further, the court
stated:
The provoking party’s actions are an integral part of the overall incident. The insured’s response in self-defense often will be
intentional when the insured fears serious bodily harm or
death. Other times the insured could be acting purely reflexively in responding to the third party’s real or perceived threat.
In this sense, the insured’s acts in self-defense are involuntary,
not wrongful, and triggered by the unexpected and unforeseen
threat presented by the provoking third party.37
2008, the court of appeal issued its opinion in Lyons v. Fire Insurance
Exchange.39 The court cited Mendez and Quan in echoing the holdings of those cases that allegations of false imprisonment in the context of sexual assault raised no potential of coverage under the CGL
policy the defendant had issued to the plaintiff—a former Major
League Baseball player known to his teammates as “Psycho.” The
claims therefore triggered no duty to defend.40
Lyons fits into a long line of cases rejecting a defense or indemnity against claims of sexual molestation.41 But in cases involving less
prurient facts, claims for damages that are unintentional and unexpected consequences of an intentional act are held to trigger the
insurer’s duty to defend.42
For example, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Superior
Court (Wright) arose from the tender of an action against State
Farm’s insured for personal injuries the plaintiff suffered when the
insured threw him into a swimming pool, and he landed on the
pool’s cement step and broke his collarbone.43 State Farm rejected tender on the grounds that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by an
“occurrence” or “accident” as the policy defined those terms.44 The
insured settled the underlying action and assigned all rights under his
policy to the plaintiff.45
At the trial of the plaintiff’s action against State Farm, the court
found the insured did not intend to injure the plaintiff but rather simply wanted to get him wet. As recounted by the appellate court, “the
trial court recited the rule that when an injury is an unexpected or
unintended consequence of the insured’s conduct, it may be characterized as an accident for which coverage exists.”46 Because the
injury was neither expected nor intended, the trial court ruled State
Farm owed a duty to defend its insured against the allegations of the
underlying action.47
The Wright court started its analysis by noting the meaning of the
term “accident” in insurance law is not settled.48 The court reviewed
a number of cases, including Quan, and arrived at the conclusion that
“an accident can exist when either the cause is unintended or the effect
is unanticipated.” The court cited with approval the Mendez defin-
The Wright Concerns
Meanwhile, the courts of appeal continue to consider cases involving allegedly intentional acts and policyholders’ claims that their
insurance companies owe duties to defend or indemnify. In March
ition of “accident” that Jafari, too, had
emphasized, requiring an unintended and
fortuitous aspect in the causal series of events
leading to the injury or damage.49
The court described a series of illustrative
paradigms. In one, a batter hits a baseball during a game with the intention of hitting a
home run but, because of his stance and the
angle of contact between bat and ball, sends
it through a window in foul territory instead.
In another, an intentionally speeding driver
negligently hits another car. Both are accidents, according to Wright. In the baseball
paradigm, one of the aspects in the causal
series of events—too much force at an inadvertent angle—was unintended by the batter
and thus fortuitous. The second paradigm
was chosen from the Mendez opinion, in
which the court explained that “the act
directly responsible for the injury—hitting
the other car—was not intended by the driver and was fortuitous. Accordingly, the
occurrence resulting in injury would be
deemed an accident.”50
The Wright court likened the plaintiff’s
claim to the paradigms. State Farm’s insured
deliberately picked up Wright and threw him
into the pool, but he did not intend or expect
the consequence that Wright would land on
a step and be injured. “[T]he act directly
responsible for [the plaintiff’s] injury, throwing too softly so as to miss the water, was an
unforeseen or undesigned happening or consequence and was thus fortuitous,” the court
concluded.51 “The event here was an accident
because not all of the acts, the manner in
which they were done, and the objective
accomplished transpired exactly as Lint [the
policyholder] intended.”52
The Wright court distinguished many of
the cases on which State Farm relied as involving sexual harassment or sexual assault, or
claims in which “the insured intended all of
the acts in the causal chain, including the
injury.”53 And it rejected “State Farm’s argument that we should apply ‘fortuity’ solely to
the act causing the injury without reference
to the injury, [because it] would result in no
coverage at all.”54
The court observed:
In State Farm’s analysis, there could
never be a covered event because all
batters deliberately seek to hit baseballs and therefore engage in intentional acts, regardless of whether the
property damage, namely, breaking
windows, was intended. Likewise,
there would never be a covered occurrence when an injury is occasioned
by a negligent driver, who obeys the
laws of the road, nevertheless miscalculates a lane change and hits another
car. Under State Farm’s analysis all
accident-based automobile insurance
policies would be illusory.55
The analyses in Wright and Jafari seem
intuitively correct. They are also consistent
with the test the California Supreme Court
applied in Montrose Chemical Corporation
v. Superior Court.56 In holding the plaintiff
had established facts triggering the insurer’s
duty to defend it against claims arising from
alleged discharges of toxic chemicals from the
plaintiff’s manufacturing plant, the court
recited a “test for ‘expected’ damage[:]
whether the insured knew or believed its conduct was substantially certain or highly likely
to result in that kind of damage.”57
Nobody ever threw someone in a swimming pool, or punched a threatening person
in the nose, because he or she had insurance.
But insurance ought to cover people for the
consequences of things they do that, due to
unforeseen factors (including an unprovoked
attack), cause damage to others. That is certainly what a policyholder would reasonably
expect.58
In line with these expectations, three courts
in the state’s largest appellate district have in
the last year alone found the potential for coverage in nominally intentional acts. There
are plainly good reasons to provide such coverage. The supreme court will have the last
word, of course. It could decide to reject
some 50 years of precedent, or it could follow the reasoning of Jafari and the concerns
expressed in Wright.
■
1 Delgado v. Interinsurance Exch., 152 Cal. App. 4th
671 (2007) (review granted); Jafari v. EMC Ins. Cos.,
155 Cal. App. 4th 885 (2007) (review granted).
2 Lyons v. Fire Ins. Exch., 161 Cal. App. 4th 880
(2008).
3 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court
(Wright), 164 Cal. App. 4th 317 (2008).
4 Compare Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.
4th 1254, 1258 (1992) (construing advertising injury
coverage under “[c]omprehensive general liability
insurance policies”), with Buss v. Superior Court, 16
Cal. 4th 35, 39 (1997) (resolving “issues relating to
standard commercial general liability insurance policies, which were formerly called comprehensive general
liability insurance policies”).
5 See DIMUGNO & GLAD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE LAW
HANDBOOK 1095-98 (2008).
6 See Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263, 273 n.12
(1966) (string cite of cases “recogniz[ing] that an act
which under the traditional terminology of the law of
torts is denominated ‘intentional’ or ‘wilful’ does not
necessarily fall outside insurance coverage,” leading
with Firco, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 173 Cal.
App. 2d 524 (1959)).
7 Id. at 275.
8 Id. at 267.
9 Id. at 266-67.
10 Id. at 273 n.12.
11 Id. at 277.
12 See, e.g., Lowell v. Maryland Cas. Co., 65 Cal. 2d
298, 301-02 (1966); Mullen v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 73
Cal. App. 3d 163, 171 (1977); Clemmer v. Hartford
Ins. Co., 22 Cal. 3d 865, 887 (1978); Grain Dealers
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marino, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1083,
1088 (1988); Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exch., 36 Cal. App. 4th
1258, 1269 (1995); David Kleis, Inc. v. Superior Court,
37 Cal. App. 4th 1035, 1048 (1995); Delgado v.
Interinsurance Exch., 152 Cal. App. 4th 671, 684
(2007); Jafari v. EMC Ins. Cos., 155 Cal. App. 4th 885,
888 (2007).
13 Delgado, 152 Cal. App. 4th at 676-77.
14 Id. at 678-79.
15 Id. at 676.
16 Id. at 681-86.
17 Mullen, 73 Cal. App. 3d at 170.
18 David Kleis, Inc. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th
1035, 1048 (1995).
19 Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marino, 200 Cal. App.
3d 1083, 1088 (1988) (internal quotations omitted).
20 Jafari v. EMC Ins. Cos., 155 Cal. App. 4th 885, 888
(2007).
21 Id. at 889.
22 Id. at 889-91.
23 Id. at 889.
24 Id. at 890, 891.
25 Id. at 891.
26 Id. at 894.
27 Id. at 902.
28 Lowell v. Maryland Cas. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 298, 30102 (1966).
29 Merced Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 213 Cal. App. 3d
41 (1989).
30 Id. at 44.
31 Jafari, 155 Cal. App. 4th at 898-99 (quoting Mendez,
213 Cal. App. 3d at 50) (emphasis in original) (citations
omitted)).
32 Quan v. Truck Ins. Exch., 67 Cal. App. 4th 583
(1998).
33 Jafari, 155 Cal. App. 4th at 899.
34 Id. (citing Quan, 67 Cal. App. 4th at 601) (emphasis in original).
35 Id. at 899.
36 Id. at 900.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Lyons v. Fire Ins. Exch., 161 Cal. App. 4th 880
(2008).
40 Id. at 889-90.
41 See J.C. Penney Cas. Ins. Co. v. M.K., 52 Cal. 3d
1009 (1991); Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins.
Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 1595 (1993); Merced Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Mendez, 213 Cal. App. 3d 41 (1989); Horace
Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 61 Cal. App. 4th 158
(1998); Quan v. Truck Ins. Exch., 67 Cal. App. 4th 583
(1998); Northland Ins. Co. v. Briones, 81 Cal. App. 4th
796 (2000).
42 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court
(Wright), 164 Cal. App. 4th 317 (2008).
43 Id. at 321.
44 Id. at 321-22.
45 Id. at 322.
46 Id. at 323 (citing Interinsurance Exch. v. Flores, 45
Cal. App. 4th 661, 669 (1996)).
47 Id.
48 Id. at 325 (citing Hogan v. Midland Nat’l Ins. Co.,
3 Cal. 3d 553, 559 (1970)).
49 Id. at 328 (citing Merced Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mendez,
213 Cal. App. 3d 41, 50 (1989)).
50 Id. (citing Mendez, 213 Cal. App. 3d at 50).
51 Id. at 329 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
52 Id. (emphasis in original).
53 Id.
54 Id. at 330.
55 Id.
56 Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th
287 (1993).
57 Id. at 304-05.
58 See Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th
1254, 1264-65 (1992) (Ambiguous policy provisions
should be interpreted to protect the insured’s objectively
reasonable expectations.).
MCLE ARTICLE AND SELF-ASSESSMENT TEST
By reading this article and answering the accompanying test questions, you can earn one MCLE credit.
To apply for credit, please follow the instructions on the test answer sheet on page 27.
Disclose
or Dismiss
Part of any litigator’s
due diligence should
be to determine if the
plaintiff has a pending
bankruptcy action
by Craig A. Roeb
Bankruptcy is often a refuge for individuals
or businesses whose assets are threatened by
pending litigation or judgments. While access
to the bankruptcy court has been severely
restricted in recent years by congressional
changes to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the
bankruptcy option remains for those defending civil lawsuits who subsequently require the
benefits and protections afforded under bankruptcy law.
But what happens when the debtor is the
one prosecuting a civil action, and he or she
fails to disclose the pending or even potential
civil action in the context of the bankruptcy
proceeding? The result of this oversight or
deception can be drastic, including the ultimate sanction: dismissal of the civil action.
When an individual or entity files a petition for bankruptcy protection under chapters 7, 11, or 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, a
bankruptcy estate is created. Pursuant to
Section 541(a)(1) of the code, the bankruptcy
estate is composed of “all legal or equitable
interests of the debtor in property as of the
commencement of the case.”1
The scope of Section 541(a)(1) is broad,
encompassing both tangible and intangible
property.2 Included within the wide sweep of
“intangible property” under the section are
prepetition causes of action held by the
debtor.3 The bankruptcy estate encompasses
all property of the debtor, even what is needed
for a fresh start.4 As the U.S. Supreme Court
has recognized, “[A]n estate in bankruptcy
consists of all the interests in property, legal
and equitable, possessed by the debtor at the
time of filing, as well as those interests recovered or recoverable through transfer and lien
avoidance provisions.”5
The Bankruptcy Code affords debtors the
right to exempt certain property from the
Craig A. Roeb is a partner in the Los Angeles office
of Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger,
where he chairs the firm’s business, employment,
and product liability practice groups. He acknowledges and thanks law clerk Michael Cooper for
his assistance with this article.
bankruptcy estate. 6 Section 522 of the
Bankruptcy Code directs what property a
debtor may exempt. In chapter 7 proceedings,
nonexempt property in a debtor’s bankruptcy
estate is subject to administration by the
trustee for the benefit of creditors—and this
property includes pending lawsuits. As one
court has explained, pursuant to Section 541,
“a trustee in bankruptcy succeeds to all causes
of action held by a debtor at the time a bankruptcy petition is filed.”7
Trustee. These purposes are fully realized when a debtor complies with the
requirement that he or she submit
accurate and complete information
concerning the identification of creditors and assets.12
When an individual files for bankruptcy
protection but fails to disclose an existing
cause of action in his or her bankruptcy filings, such as the statement of financial affairs,
and later receives a discharge, courts have held
cially if it be to the prejudice of the party who
has acquiesced in the position formerly taken
by him.”17 The Court further noted that the
“purpose of the doctrine is to protect the
integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the
moment.”18
In New Hampshire, the Court set forth
several factors for courts to consider in determining whether to apply judicial estoppel.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the doctrine
of judicial estoppel precluded a party from “asserting a
claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a
claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.”
Subject to the specific exemption rules,
the Bankruptcy Code seeks to ensure that all
property of the debtor is included in the
debtor’s bankruptcy estate for administration
by the bankruptcy trustee. To accomplish that
purpose, Bankruptcy Code Section 521(1)
requires the debtor to file a schedule of assets
and liabilities, a schedule of current income
and expenditures, and a statement of financial
affairs.8 A debtor has an “affirmative duty to
disclose all of its assets to the bankruptcy
court.”9 The required documents must be
executed under penalty of perjury.
In completing the schedules, debtors have
an absolute duty to report any and all interest they hold in property, even if they believe
their assets are worthless or unavailable to the
bankruptcy estate. Schedules must be complete, thorough, and accurate so that creditors
are able to judge for themselves the nature of
the debtor’s estate.10 The disclosure obligations
of debtors are at the very core of the bankruptcy process. In fact, courts have said that
meeting these obligations is part of the price
that debtors must pay for receiving a bankruptcy discharge.11 As one court has noted:
The dual purposes of a Chapter 7
bankruptcy case are to grant the honest debtor a discharge of his or her
pre-petition debts, and to provide a
mechanism for the fair and orderly
distribution of the debtor’s assets that
are subject to administration by the
that the debtor possesses no standing to pursue the civil claim, because it was—and would
have been—the property of the trustee prior
to discharge.13 According to decisional law,
a debtor is disallowed to assert title to or
pursue an undisclosed claim simply because
a trustee, without knowledge of the claim,
took no action regarding it before the bankruptcy proceeding was closed.14 Accordingly,
a debtor/plaintiff will lose the right to pursue
a civil claim by either failing to disclose it in
his or her bankruptcy proceeding or intentionally concealing it from the court, trustee,
and creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Equitable Grounds
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that
precludes a party from asserting one position
and then later seeking advantage by taking a
clearly inconsistent position.15 In recent years,
the doctrine of judicial estoppel has been
asserted with increasing frequency as a defense
to various claims. In New Hampshire v.
Maine,16 the U.S. Supreme Court applied the
doctrine to bar the State of New Hampshire
from taking a different position from that
taken by the state during litigation in the
1970s. It explained that “under the judicial
estoppel doctrine, where a party assumes a
certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not
thereafter, simply because his interests have
changed, assume a contrary position, espe-
First, the later position must be clearly inconsistent with the earlier position. Second, if a
party succeeds in persuading a court to accept
that party’s earlier position, the judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later
proceeding would create the perception that
either the first or the second court was misled.
Third, the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the
opposing party if not estopped from attempting to assert it.19 Implying greater application
of the doctrine, the Court noted that these factors are not “inflexible prerequisites.”20
The doctrine’s specific applicability to
bankruptcy proceedings is illuminated in Hay
v. First Interstate Bank.21 The debtor, Hay,
filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in
1986. During the course of the proceeding,
Hay discovered information leading to potential claims that he ultimately brought against
First Interstate and others in a federal civil
action in 1989. However, Hay never brought
the information he discovered to the attention
of the bankruptcy court at any time before the
bankruptcy proceeding was closed in 1988.22
First Interstate moved for summary judgment in the civil action, contending Hay was
judicially estopped from asserting any claims
against it because the events that led to his
claims arose during the course of Hay’s prior
bankruptcy proceeding. The trial court
granted First Interstate’s summary judgment
MCLE Test No. 175
The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum
Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour.
1. A bankruptcy estate consists of the legal interests of
a debtor at the time of the commencement of a bankruptcy case.
True.
False.
2. Under U.S. Bankruptcy Code Section 541(a)(1), a
debtor must identify both tangible and intangible property when filing a petition and supplemental documents, including schedules, with the bankruptcy court.
True.
False.
3. Federal law does not include a prebankruptcy petition cause of action as intangible property in the evaluation of the debtor’s property.
True.
False.
4. All property possessed by the debtor at the time of
filing a bankruptcy petition must be disclosed under
Section 541(a)(1).
True.
False.
5. A trustee in bankruptcy does not have a right of
succession to a cause of action held by a debtor at the
time a bankruptcy petition is filed.
True.
False.
6. A debtor must file schedules with a bankruptcy
petition, except:
A. A schedule of assets and liabilities.
B. A schedule of current income and
expenditures.
C. A schedule of pending causes of action.
7. A debtor does not need to disclose assets deemed
to be worthless or unavailable when filing a petition for
bankruptcy.
True.
False.
8. Under Section 522(b), an exemption is an interest
withdrawn from the estate for the benefit of the debtor.
True.
False.
9. Courts have held that debtors who fail to disclose
a cause of action at the time of filing their bankruptcy
petitions lack standing to subsequently bring a civil
claim.
True.
False.
10. A debtor loses the right to pursue a civil claim if he
or she either fails to disclose the claim or the trustee
fails to ask about the claim.
True.
False.
11. A court’s refusal to allow a party to assert a position and then later seek advantage by taking a clearly
inconsistent position is commonly known as:
A. Equitable estoppel.
B. Judicial estoppel.
C. Res judicata.
D. Statutory estoppel.
12. Which of the following is not a factor that a court
will consider when determining whether to apply judicial estoppel?
A. The subsequent position asserts an
unrecognized claim.
B. The subsequent position is inconsistent with
the first.
C. A party would gain an unfair advantage if the
subsequent position is advanced.
D. A party has convinced a previous court of its
position.
13. The Ninth Circuit has held that a debtor need not
disclose litigation likely to arise in the nonbankruptcy
context.
True.
False.
14. A debtor’s duty to disclose potential claims as
assets does not end when the debtor files schedules
but continues for the duration of the bankruptcy proceeding.
True.
False.
15. A debtor’s failure to disclose is inadvertent only
when the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has a fraudulent motive to conceal.
True.
False.
16. A debtor may correct a prior nondisclosure of a
pending civil action as long as the bankruptcy proceeding is ongoing.
True.
False.
17. Parties asserting judicial estoppel may raise an
inference of bad faith if they show a motive to conceal
the claim by the debtor.
True.
False.
18. If a party asserts judicial estoppel against a debtor,
courts have held that the same party bears the burden
of production indicating that nondisclosure was in
good faith.
True.
False.
19. Once a party establishes that the debtor had knowledge of the claim and a motive to conceal it, the inquiry
does not end if the debtor comes forward with rebuttal evidence.
True.
False.
20. A debtor who conceals a pending civil action during a bankruptcy proceeding may lose both legal and
equitable rights to pursue the action as a consequence.
True.
False.
MCLE Answer Sheet #175
DISCLOSE OR DISMISS
Name
Law Firm/Organization
Address
City
State/Zip
E-mail
Phone
State Bar #
INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING MCLE CREDITS
1. Study the MCLE article in this issue.
2. Answer the test questions opposite by marking
the appropriate boxes below. Each question
has only one answer. Photocopies of this
answer sheet may be submitted; however, this
form should not be enlarged or reduced.
3. Mail the answer sheet and the $15 testing fee
($20 for non-LACBA members) to:
Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055
Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.
4. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will
return your test with the correct answers, a
rationale for the correct answers, and a
certificate verifying the MCLE credit you earned
through this self-assessment activity.
5. For future reference, please retain the MCLE
test materials returned to you.
ANSWERS
Mark your answers to the test by checking the
appropriate boxes below. Each question has only
one answer.
1.
■ True
■ False
2.
■ True
■ False
3.
■ True
■ False
4.
■ True
■ False
5.
■ True
6.
■A
7.
■ True
■ False
8.
■ True
■ False
9.
■ True
■ False
10.
■ True
11.
■A
■B
■C
■D
12.
■A
■B
■C
■D
13.
■ True
■ False
14.
■ True
■ False
15.
■ True
■ False
16.
■ True
■ False
17.
■ True
■ False
18.
■ True
■ False
19.
■ True
■ False
20.
■ True
■ False
■ False
■B
■C
■ False
motion, which was unanimously affirmed
on appeal.23
The Ninth Circuit initially recognized that
while not all of the facts underlying Hay’s
claims against First Interstate were known
during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding, Hay knew enough information to
require him to notify the bankruptcy court of
the existence of the potential asset. Citing
precedent, the Ninth Circuit noted that a
debtor “must disclose any litigation likely to
arise in the non-bankruptcy context.” The
court held that the failure to give this notice
estopped Hay and justified the summary termination of his civil action.24
Similarly illustrative is Hamilton v. State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company,25 in which
the plaintiff asserted a questionable claim
with his insurer, State Farm, for water intrusion at a home Hamilton owned but rented to
others. Following an investigation of the claim,
State Farm concluded Hamilton intentionally caused the water intrusion, that he vandalized and stole property from the house, and
that he violated the antifraud/concealment
provisions of the insurance policy at issue.
Consequently, State Farm denied the claim.26
Prior to State Farm’s decision, Hamilton
hired lawyers to pressure the insurer to pay
the claim. In correspondence from the lawyers
to the carrier, Hamilton emphasized the
importance of promptly settling his claim
because he was facing a November 10, 1997,
foreclosure deadline on his house due to the
unremedied property damage and corollary
absence of income generated by a renter.
Nevertheless, State Farm denied the claim
on November 3, 1997.27
Before receiving State Farm’s denial letter,
Hamilton filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on October 31, 1997. In the schedules
he filed with the bankruptcy court, Hamilton
listed a $160,000 loss against his estate, but
he failed to disclose his corresponding claim
against State Farm as an asset of the estate.
The bankruptcy trustee noticed the large loss
Hamilton listed and inquired on several occasions if he was pursuing any insurance claims
to recover on the loss. Hamilton’s repeated
failure to respond led to a successful motion
by the trustee in July 1998 to dismiss the
bankruptcy case, which also vacated any
impending discharge of Hamilton’s debts.28
Three months later, in October 1998,
Hamilton filed a bad faith lawsuit against
State Farm based on the denial of his insurance claim. State Farm brought a motion for
summary judgment, contending, among other
things, that the case was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel because Hamilton
failed to list his insurance claim (and impending lawsuit) as assets in his chapter 7 bankruptcy schedules. The trial court agreed with
State Farm, concluding Hamilton’s contradictory positions in the bankruptcy case and
his subsequent civil action estopped him from
pursuing his lawsuit against State Farm.29
As the court declared:
[W]e must invoke judicial estoppel to
protect the integrity of the bankruptcy
process. The debtor, once he institutes
the bankruptcy process, disrupts the
flow of commerce and obtains a stay
and the benefits derived by listing all
his assets. The Bankruptcy Code and
Rules “impose upon the bankruptcy
debtors an express affirmative duty to
disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.” The
debtor’s duty to disclose potential
claims as assets does not end when
the debtor files schedules, but instead
continues for the duration of the bankruptcy proceeding.30
The court of appeal thus concluded that
Hamilton’s dishonesty in his bankruptcy case
judicially estopped him from asserting
claims—which constitute previously undisclosed assets—in his subsequent civil action.
A decision in the same vein is Burnes v.
Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.31 The debtor in Burnes
filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in July
1997. Six months later, the debtor filed a
discrimination charge with the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission against his
employer. Almost a year later, while his bankruptcy proceeding was pending, the debtor
filed an employment discrimination suit
against his employer in federal district court.
The debtor never amended his bankruptcy
schedules or the statement of financial affairs
to include the lawsuit. In October 2000, the
debtor converted his bankruptcy case from
chapter 13 to chapter 7. At that time, the
debtor filed new, updated schedules but again
did not include the discrimination lawsuit. In
January 2001, the debtor received a “no
asset” discharge of over $38,000 in debt.
Neither the chapter 7 trustee nor any of the
debtor’s creditors knew about the lawsuit.
The defendant employer moved for summary judgment in the district court on the
basis of judicial estoppel, and the court
granted the motion, concluding that judicial
estoppel barred the debtor from pursuing
his claims.32
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that
the doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded a
party from “asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken
by that party in a previous proceeding.”
Moreover, the doctrine is “an equitable concept intended to prevent the perversion of
the judicial process” and “protect the integrity
of the judicial process by prohibiting parties
from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.”33 The
court concluded that the first part of the twopart analysis had been satisfied because the
debtor had signed his bankruptcy schedules
and statement of financial affairs under oath.34
Although the court recognized that judicial estoppel should not be applied if the
inconsistencies are the result of “a good faith
mistake rather than…part of a scheme to
mislead the court,” the court determined
that a “debtor’s failure to satisfy [his or her]
statutory disclosure duty is inadvertent only
when, in general, the debtor either lacks
knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has
no motive for their concealment.”35 In so
holding, the court rejected the debtor’s contentions that his failure to place the cause of
action on his schedules was inadvertent error.
The court held that the debtor clearly
demonstrated his knowledge of the undisclosed cause of action because he had filed the
discrimination lawsuit during the pendency
of his chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding and
continued to pursue the claim when he converted the case to a chapter 7 proceeding. The
court also determined that the debtor had a
motive to conceal the cause of action because
he probably would not have received a “no
asset” discharge of his debts if the trustee, the
bankruptcy court, and his creditors had
known about the cause of action. Therefore,
the court held that the district court did not
err in determining that the debtor was judicially estopped from pursuing his discrimination lawsuit against his former employer.36
When to Notify, Correct, or Attack
For defendants, the issue of timing in notifying the court in a civil action of potential
bankruptcy fraud committed by a debtor/
plaintiff in a bankruptcy proceeding is crucial. If the bankruptcy proceeding is still
ongoing, the debtor/plaintiff still has the
opportunity to revise or amend the statement of financial affairs that was filed in the
bankruptcy court to “correct” a prior nondisclosure of a pending civil action. Once the
bankruptcy proceeding is concluded, however,
the opportunity to correct the nondisclosure
virtually evaporates, and the plaintiff is
exposed to critical scrutiny by the civil court
to explain away the objective appearance of
fraud and deception.
The recent decision of an Indiana appellate court in Morgan County Hospital v.
Maria Upham is instructive.37 Maria Upham,
the surviving spouse and personal representative of the estate of her decedent husband,
claimed that her husband died as a result of
malpractice committed by a hospital and its
staff physicians. Before instituting the mal-
“ It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”
— John Wooden
Study with UCLA Extension
Real Estate and Legal Programs
Whether you’re seeking professional development, a career change, or a better
understanding of the legal world, we have the learning experience for you.
OUR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL OFFERINGS INCLUDE:
䊏
ABA Approved Paralegal Program
uclaextension.edu/LAL1
䊏
Mediation Training
䊏
Certificate Program in Real Estate with
Specializations in Appraisal, Finance, Investment,
or Marketing
䊏
Training for legal secretaries
䊏
Professional development and MCLE credit for
attorneys and legal professionals in areas such
as alternative dispute resolution, business, community property, labor and employment, intellectual
property, and family law
䊏
Continuing education courses for paralegals
and attorneys in areas such as legal courses for
the general public, employment law, workers
compensation, and immigration law
For more information call (310) 206-1409.
Elder Law & Nursing Home
Abuse & Neglect
Law Offices of Steven Peck is seeking association or referrals for:
1) Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect (Dehydration, Bedsores, Falls, Death)
2) Financial Abuse (Real Estate, Theft, Undue Influence)
3) Trust & Probate Litigation (Will Contests, Trusts, Beneficiaries)
4) Catastrophic Injury (Brain, Spinal Cord, Aviation, Auto, etc.)
27 years of experience
TOLL FREE
866.999.9085 LOCAL 818.908.0509
www.californiaeldercarelaw.com • www.premierlegal.org • [email protected]
WE PAY REFERRAL FEES PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
practice action, Upham first brought an
administrative claim in 1998 with the Indiana
Department of Insurance against the same
defendants. During the course of the prelitigation administrative claim, Upham
responded to interrogatories under oath that
she had never filed for bankruptcy.
Following an adverse ruling and dismissal
of her prelitigation administrative claim in
2001, Upham filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection in June 2002. Five months later, she
initiated the malpractice action. In January
2005, Upham filed an amended declaration
in bankruptcy court concerning her financial affairs, in which she did not disclose the
ongoing malpractice action.
In September 2006, during her deposition
in the malpractice action, Upham testified
about the bankruptcy petition she had filed
three years earlier in 2002. At the time of her
testimony, the bankruptcy proceeding was
still open and ongoing. One month later,
Upham was successful in a motion to have
the bankruptcy court issue an order specifying that any sums recovered in the malpractice action would be reported to the
court and trustee for distribution to Upham’s
creditors.
Subsequently, the defendants in the malpractice action brought summary judgment
motions on the grounds that Upham did not
possess standing to sue and that she was judicially estopped from pursuing the action
based on her failure to disclose it in her filings
with the bankruptcy court. The court granted
the motions, agreeing with the defense that
Upham was judicially estopped from pursuing her malpractice suit based on the nondisclosure issue.
Upham then brought a motion in the trial
court for reconsideration and to correct the
error. The motion was granted, thereby nullifying the summary judgments in favor of the
defendants, and the order was affirmed on
appeal. Citing Robson v. Texas Eastern,38
the court of appeal in Morgan initially noted
the applicability of judicial estoppel when a
debtor/plaintiff fails to disclose a cause of
action as an asset in bankruptcy proceedings
and then pursues the omitted cause of action
in a subsequent civil lawsuit.39 The court
then noted how an inference of bad faith
arises when the party asserting judicial estoppel demonstrates that the plaintiff had knowledge of an unscheduled claim and a motive
for concealment, notwithstanding the duty to
disclose it.
The court recognized that if the party
asserting judicial estoppel establishes knowledge of a claim and motive for concealment
by the debtor/plaintiff, the plaintiff then has
the “burden of coming forth with evidence
indicating that the nondisclosure was made in
good faith.” However, the court also empha-
sized that while knowledge and motive are
important in establishing judicial estoppel,
“the inquiry does not end there if the
debtor/plaintiff comes forward with evidence
indicating that the non-disclosure was made
in good faith.”40
Applying these principles to the facts of the
case, the appellate court in Morgan concurred with the trial court that Upham sufficiently explained her failure to amend her filings with the bankruptcy court to denote the
existence of the malpractice action prior to her
deposition in that action. The explanation,
concomitant with the fact that her bankruptcy proceeding was still open and ongoing, militated in favor of Upham and against
the defendants’ judicial estoppel argument.
The trial court’s order reversing the defendants’ summary judgment motions was thus
proper and affirmed on appeal.
Considering the present economic climate,
it is incumbent on defense lawyers to perform
a bankruptcy background check on plaintiffs.
Arguably more important is the same background check performed by the attorney representing the plaintiff, to ensure that no undisclosed pending or even former bankruptcy
proceeding is omitted from the intake history
by counsel. This due diligence is critical, considering no plaintiff’s lawyer wants to risk an
involuntary dismissal of a civil action due to
a client’s deceptive acts or conduct.
Whether by mistake or intention, a debtor/
plaintiff who conceals a pending civil action
in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding
may lose any legal or equitable right to pursue the civil action as a consequence of the
nondisclosure. While the timing of an attack
by the defense can be determinative of success
on a dispositive motion brought in the trial
court, eventually the issue must be addressed
with the court by counsel.
■
1 11
U.S.C. §541(a)(1).
United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198
(1983); Chao v. Hospital Staffing Servs., Inc., 270 F.
3d 374 (6th Cir. 2002).
3 In re Graham Square, Inc., 126 F. 3d 823 (6th Cir.
1997) (“Property of the estate includes the debtor’s
interest in a cause of action.”) (citing In re Cotrell, 876
F. 2d 540 (6th Cir. 1989)).
4 Tignor v. Parkinson, 729 F. 2d 977 (4th Cir. 1984);
In re Merlino, 62 B.R. 836, 839 (Bankr. W.D. Wash.
1986); In re Linderman, 20 B.R. 826 (Bankr. W.D.
Wash. 1982).
5 Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305 (1991).
6 11 U.S.C. §522(b); Owen, 500 U.S. at 308 (“An
exemption is an interest withdrawn from the estate
(and thus, from creditors) for the benefit of the debtor.”).
7 In re Degenaar, 261 B.R. 316 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
2001).
8 11 U.S.C. §521(1); Browning v. Levy, 283 F. 3d 761
(6th Cir. 2002).
9 Id.
10 In re Coombs, 193 B.R. 557 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1996).
2
11 In
re Colvin, 288 B.R. 477 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2003).
re Baskowitz, 194 B.R. 839, 843 (Bankr. E.D. Mo.
1996).
13 First Nat’l Bank v. Lasater, 196 U.S. 115 (1905).
14 11 U.S.C. §541(a)(1).
15 Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamers Local 343, 94 F. 3d
597, 600-01 (9th Cir. 1996); Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.
2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990).
16 New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001).
17 Id. at 749.
18 Id. at 750.
19 Id. at 751.
20 Id.
21 Hay v. First Interstate Bank, 978 F. 2d 555 (9th Cir.
1992).
22 Id. at 556.
23 Id. at 557.
24 Id.
25 Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F. 3d
778 (9th Cir. 2001).
26 Id. at 780-81.
27 Id. at 781.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 781-82.
30 Id. at 785.
31 Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F. 3d 1282 (11th
Cir. 2002).
32 Id. at 1284.
33 Id. at 1287.
34 Id. at 1285.
35 Id. at 1287.
36 Id. at 1288.
37 Morgan County Hosp. v. Maria Upham, 884 N.E.
2d 275 (2008).
38 Robson v. Texas E. Corp., 833 N.E. 2d 461 (2005).
39 Morgan, 884 N.E. 2d at 280.
40 Id.
12 In
DON’T GO IT ALONE!
Attend Our Inspiring Seminar on Attorney Career Transitions,
in the privacy of your Home or Office on CD or DVD.
TOPICS
INCLUDE:
•
•
•
•
•
The Discipline of Successfully Setting Out in A New Direction. It’s worth it!
Finding Your “Ideal Job”. You receive a Playbook!
Overcoming Obstacles to The Psychology of Change. It’s all in your head!
Effective Change: Money and Other Matters. Change is a state of mind!
Essential Tools of the Job Search. S horten your time to a new
w beginning!
BENEFITS FOR YOU:
•
•
•
•
Shorten Your Time to A New Job or New Career
Learn How to Tap Into the Hidden Job Market
Learn Tactics on Effective Job Search Strategies
Receive a Professionally Prepared Manual
ESI
EDUCATIONAL
SEMINARS
INSTITUTE
ORDER TODAY!
WWW.ESISEMS.COM
or call 866.547.6083
Audio CD -$339 OR DVD -$359
WWW.ESISEMS.COM
✤
by Keith Paul Bishop
SILVER
STANDARD
There are many benefits to incorporating in Nevada,
but tax avoidance is not one of them
rate charters. Much less has been written
about Nevada. Practitioners seeking to assist
their corporate clients should be aware of
the key differences between California and
Nevada corporate law.
California’s relationship with the corporate form has been ambivalent at best. The
drafters of the original 1849 Constitution
imposed personal liability on stockholders by
specifying that each stockholder of a corporation “shall be individually and personally
liable for his proportion of all its debts and
liabilities.”4 The 1879 Constitution substantially expanded the provisions relating to
corporations.5 In addition to continuing to
place personal liability on stockholders for
corporate debts, the 1879 Constitution made
directors jointly and severally liable to creditors and stockholders for all moneys embezzled or misappropriated by the officers of the
corporation during the directors’ term of
office.6 The 1879 Constitution also prohibited corporations from holding any real estate
for a period longer than five years except as
necessary for carrying on their business.7
In 1930, voters approved the removal of
several of these detailed provisions from the
constitution. The following year, California
enacted its first modern general corporation
law. By that time, attitudes toward corporations had softened. More important, California
had awakened to the fact that it was competing with other states for corporate charters.
In fact, the draftsmen of the 1931 California
General Corporation Law stated that their
primary object was to “put California on a
Keith Paul Bishop is a partner in the Irvine office
of Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory & Natsis
LLP and an adjunct professor of law at Chapman
University Law School. He formerly served as
California’s commissioner of corporations.
RON OVERMYER
THE FIRST STEP in organizing any
U.S. corporation is to decide where to incorporate—and with 50 states offering their
charters, any systematic search for the best
one quickly proves daunting. Lawyers and
their clients most often limit their consideration to just a handful of states, and if they
do consider a state other than the one in
which they are resident, they most commonly
choose a Delaware charter.1 More recently,
however, Nevada has waged an aggressive and
successful campaign to attract corporate charters. By 1999, Nevada was second only to
Delaware when ranked by the national percentage of out-of-state, publicly traded corporations.2 For publicly traded corporations
located in California, the order of preference
for charters has been Delaware, California,
and Nevada.3
Much has been written about the preeminence of Delaware as an importer of corpo-
competitive basis as to all legitimate corporate
advantages and facilities with Delaware,
Nevada and other incorporating states….”8
Nevada has been far friendlier to the corporate form. Nevada’s constitution, adopted
in 1864 and still in effect, provides that “corporators in corporations formed under the
laws of this State shall not be individually
liable for the debts or liabilities of such corporation.” 9 In the last few decades, the
Nevada Legislature has been proactive in its
efforts to enact statutory provisions that are
alluring to those in search of a corporate
charter.
Each organizer of a corporation has specific priorities and objectives for the corporation and for its internal structure and governance. In many instances, lawyers may be
inclined to go with what they know—the
corporation law of the state in which they and
their clients happen to be located. Indeed, to
do otherwise would require a lawyer to
expend time and effort in becoming familiar
with the general corporation law of another
jurisdiction. Moreover, lawyers are likely to
believe that there is less risk of error or surprises due to their greater familiarity with their
home state’s law. Lawyers may also be concerned about the cost and inconvenience of
litigation in another jurisdiction.
When lawyers do look out of state, they
are likely to look for specific provisions such
as manager liability, voting rights, and antitakeover provisions. The extent to which
these provisions will be of interest or even
available depends upon whether the corporation is publicly traded.
Managerial Conduct
Both California and Nevada establish the
standard of care for directors by statute.10
Beyond that similarity, California and Nevada
share very little in their approaches to managerial conduct. In Nevada Revised Statutes
Section 78.138(1), Nevada expresses a director’s duty of care simply and succinctly:
“Directors shall exercise their powers in good
faith and with a view to the interests of the
corporation.” In 1999, the Nevada Legislature, at the behest of the Business Law
Section of the State Bar of Nevada, amended
Section 78.138 so that “directors and officers,
in deciding upon matters of business, are
presumed to act in good faith, on an informed
basis and with a view to the interests of the
corporation.”11
On its face, Nevada’s statutory standard
is subjective—that is, it addresses only a
director’s state of mind rather than whether
the director measures up against some external standard. The Nevada Supreme Court
has not had occasion to explicate the meaning of “good faith” under Section 78.138.
Thus, it remains to be seen to what extent an
objective standard of conduct will be judicially
read into the Nevada statute.
California, on the other hand, requires
directors to act with due care in addition to
good faith:
A director shall perform the duties of
a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board
upon which the director may serve, in
good faith, and in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests
of the corporation and its shareholders and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would
use under similar circumstances.12
By requiring good faith and imposing an
“ordinarily prudent person” standard,
California imposes both subjective and objective components to a director’s standard of
care that contrasts with Nevada’s overtly
subjective standard.
California purports to afford directors
the protection of the business judgment rule,
which immunizes disinterested directors from
liability for the decisions that are made by
them in their capacity as directors.13 Nevada,
in contrast, has its statutory good faith presumption.14 While the statute does not indicate whether this presumption can be rebutted, presumably a plaintiff would be
permitted to make a contrary evidentiary
showing.
Because of the dearth of decisions applying Nevada’s unique statutory standard and
presumption, it is not possible to conclude
with any degree of certainty that directors in
Nevada will be held to a lower standard than
directors of California and Delaware corporations. However, Nevada’s statute on its
face offers the prospect of a lower standard.
California allows for the inclusion of a
provision in a corporation’s articles of incorporation that eliminates or limits the liability of directors. Until 2001, Nevada had also
permitted such an exculpatory provision to be
included in the articles. Thus, both states
had followed an opt-in approach to limiting
the liability of directors. Now, in a significant
break with California, Nevada automatically
relieves corporate directors and officers from
liability to the corporation or its stockholders for damages unless it is proven that: 1) the
act or failure to act constituted a breach of
fiduciary duty, and 2) the breach involved
intentional misconduct, fraud, or a knowing violation of the law.15
The Nevada law contains a number of
very specific exceptions. Thus, liability is not
excluded under Nevada Revised Statutes
Sections 35.230 (liability for judgment of
ouster), 90.660 (civil liability in connection
with sales of securities), 91.250 (commodity
law), 452.200 (unauthorized use of endow-
ment funds), 452.270 (violation of laws pertaining to mausoleums, vaults, or crypts),
668.045 (receiving deposits of insolvent
banks), and 698A.030 (insider trading in an
insurer). In 2003, the Nevada Legislature
amended Section 78.138(7) to permit a corporation to provide for greater liability in
articles of incorporation or an amendment to
the articles filed on or after October 1, 2003.
Thus, Nevada now takes an opt-out approach, while California and Delaware continue to take an opt-in approach.16
In addition to avoiding the necessity of
including an exculpatory provision in the
articles of incorporation, Nevada’s law offers
broader exculpation than does California’s.
Perhaps most significantly, Nevada’s law
exculpates directors and officers, whereas
California and Delaware permit exculpation
only of directors.
California’s General Corporation Law
does not permit liability to be eliminated or
limited for acts or omissions that:
• Involve intentional misconduct or a knowing and culpable violation of law.
• A director believes to be contrary to the
best interests of the corporation or its shareholders.
• Involve the absence of good faith on the part
of the director.
• Show a reckless disregard for the director’s duty to the corporation or its shareholders in circumstances in which the director was aware, or should have been aware, in
the ordinary course of performing a director’s
duties, of a risk of serious injury to the corporation or its shareholders.
• Constitute an unexcused pattern of inattention that amounts to abdication of the
director’s duty to the corporation or its shareholders.17
In addition, California’s law prohibits
absolving a director from liability for:
• Any transaction in which the director
obtained an improper personal benefit.
• Contracts in which the director has a material financial interest.
• Improper distributions to shareholders or
improper loans.18
Thus, California’s statute permitting exculpation of directors includes far more exceptions than Nevada’s statute.
Stockholder Voting Rights
Cumulative voting rights generally operate by
giving each stockholder a number of votes
equal to the number of shares multiplied by
the number of directors to be elected. The
stockholder may then distribute these votes
among the directors in any manner in which
the stockholder sees fit. The debate over the
merits of cumulative voting in the election of
directors has been longstanding. Proponents
of cumulative voting typically argue that cor-
porate performance is enhanced when minority shareholders are able to attain some representation on the board of directors. 19
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that
cumulative voting leads to divisiveness and
special interest directors.20
California has a strong historical bias in
favor of cumulative voting in the election of
directors. In fact, California’s 1879 Constitution enshrined cumulative voting as a constitutional right.21 The 1931 California General
Corporation Law continued mandatory
cumulative voting.22 When the current California General Corporation Law was introduced, it contained a provision allowing a corporation to opt out of cumulative voting,
but the bill was amended to include mandatory cumulative voting.23
Nevada does not mandate cumulative voting in the election of directors. Instead, it
permits a corporation to confer cumulative
voting rights by including a provision in the
certificate (articles) of incorporation.24
Because cumulative voting has been
strongly disfavored by publicly traded corporations, California relaxed its cumulative
voting mandate in 1989 by enacting an exception for “listed corporations.”25 The Corporations Code defines a “listed corporation”
as a corporation with outstanding shares
listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the
American Stock Exchange, or the National
Market System of the Nasdaq Stock Market
(or any successor to that entity).26 These corporations may eliminate cumulative voting by
amending their articles of incorporation.27
Closely held corporations use supermajority voting power to balance the relative
voting powers of investors. Supermajority
voting requirements have also enjoyed popularity with publicly traded companies due
to their utility as antitakeover devices. For
example, a supermajority provision may
require the affirmative vote of at least 90 percent of the outstanding shares to approve a
merger.28 Although the individual voting
rights of each share remain unchanged under
a supermajority voting provision, minority
stockholders may have significantly increased
power because a higher vote requirement
will allow them to block certain corporate
transactions.
Nevada allows supermajority voting provisions to be included in either the articles of
incorporation or the bylaws.29 Further, there
is seemingly no limitation on these provisions.
California law is much more restrictive.
The articles may include a provision requiring a supermajority vote of any class or series
of stock for any or all corporation actions.30
There are several exceptions, however, to
this general rule. Thus, a supermajority vote
cannot be imposed regarding the removal of
directors, the election of directors, and voluntary dissolution.31
California imposes additional restrictions
for widely held corporations that on or after
January 1, 1989, filed or file an amendment
to their articles or a certificate of determination containing a supermajority vote provision. If a corporation has outstanding shares
held of record by 100 or more persons, the
supermajority vote requirement cannot exceed
662⁄3 percent of the outstanding shares, or
deference to managerial decisions. Second,
states can impose structural or procedural
requirements that implicate management
involvement. Control share and business
combination laws are examples of these types
of requirements. These laws operate by denying opportunities or rights to those who try
to acquire a corporation without negotiating
with the target’s board of directors.
Stockholder rights plans or “poison pills”
are takeover defenses that were first con-
662⁄3 percent of the outstanding shares of any
class or series of those shares.32 These limitations do not apply to a corporation that filed
or files an amendment of articles or certificate
of determination on or after January 1, 1994,
if, at the time of filing, the corporation has 1)
outstanding shares of more than one class or
series of stock, 2) no class of equity securities
registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 3)
outstanding shares of record held by fewer
than 300 persons.33
ceived over a quarter century ago but still
remain popular.34 They are not creations of
statute but arrangements established by a
company’s board of directors—typically without the affirmative assent of the owners. The
Delaware Chancery Court has provided an
overview of the structure and operation of a
stockholder rights plan:
Under the Plan each shareholder
receives one right for each share of
common outstanding. The right, which
has a term of ten years, entitles the
holder to buy one hundredth of a share
of a new series of participating preferred stock. The new preferred would
be nonredeemable and subordinate to
other series of the Company’s preferred stock. Its dividend right is tied
to the dividend for common at the
rate of 100 times the dividend declared
on common stock. Its liquidation preference is similarly linked to payment
received by common shareholders. The
exercise price for the preferred, $100
for 1/100 of a share, or $10,000 per
share, is conceded to be “out of the
money” in view of the current $1.75
dividend yield on Household common
Antitakeover Provisions
Takeover defense is an issue that primarily
concerns widely held firms. In closely held
firms there is often little or no separation of
capital and management. Thus, there is less
likelihood for the interests of the owners and
the managers to diverge.
States can enhance or diminish the capacity of corporate managers to intervene in
corporate control transactions in primarily
two ways. First, states can adopt legal schemes
that have the effect of validating or invalidating managerial actions. Examples of validating schemes include legislative or judicial
endorsement of stockholder rights plans or
which has traded in recent months in
a range of $30 to $33. The real impact
of the rights is to be found in their
“triggering” and “flip-over” features
which have led to their being labeled
as “poison pills.”
The rights detach and may be exercised only if certain triggering events,
referred to as the 20% and 30%
events, occur. Prior to the occurrence
of any of these events the rights are not
transferable apart from the common
stock to which they are affixed. Thus
if a person (a) acquires 20% of Household’s common shares or (b) achieves
the right to purchase 20% or (c)
achieves the right to vote 20% or (d)
announces the formation of a group of
persons holding 20% to act together,
the rights are triggered. The 30% triggering event occurs upon the
announcement of a tender offer or
exchange offer for 30% of Household’s
outstanding stock.
Once a triggering event has
occurred the rights may be exchanged
for the new preferred upon the payment of the exercise price. Moreover,
if a merger or consolidation occurs
under the terms of which Household’s
common shares are exchanged for
securities of the acquiror, the right
“flips-over” and enables the holder,
at the then exercise price of the right,
to purchase common stock of the
acquiror at a price reflecting a market
value of twice the exercise price of the
right. Thus the right holder would be
entitled to purchase $200 worth of
the acquiror’s common for $100. The
resultant dilution of the acquiror’s capital is immediate and devastating.35
The court’s description makes it clear
that shareholder rights plans are effective
because they discriminate against specific
shareholders. The discriminatory nature of
a shareholder rights plan constitutes both
its operative mechanism and its legal vulnerability.
Nevada has enacted several statutory provisions that directly address the legal viability of shareholder rights plans. The provisions
of Nevada Revised Statutes Section 78.195(5),
which apply to the issuance of shares of more
than one class or series, “do not restrict the
directors of a corporation from taking action
to protect the interests of the corporation
and its stockholders, including, but not limited to, adopting or signing plans, arrangements or instruments that grant rights to
stockholders or that deny rights, privileges,
power or authority to a holder of a specified
number of shares or percentage of share ownership or voting power.”36
A nearly identical statement is also found
in Nevada Revised Statutes Section 78.350(4),
which governs the voting rights of stockholders. Further, Section 78.378(3) provides
that nothing in Nevada’s control share law
prohibits signing plans, arrangements, or
instruments that deny rights, privileges, power,
or authority to a holder of a specified number of shares or percentage of share ownership or voting power. While these provisions
provide strong evidence of the Nevada
Legislature’s attempt to validate stockholder
rights plans, they do not necessarily foreclose challenges to director action in adopting or implementing a plan. Further, Nevada
is far from the only state to have statutorily
endorsed shareholder rights plans.37
The status of stockholder rights plans is
far less clear under the California Corporations Code, which is devoid of any analogue
to the Nevada statutes that are applicable to
the plans. A stockholder rights plan could be
challenged on the basis of Corporations Code
Section 203, which mandates equality of
treatment: “Except as specified in the articles
or in any shareholders’ agreement, no distinction shall exist between classes or series
of shares or the holders thereof.”38 Nonetheless, this has not prevented California corporations from implementing stockholder
rights plans.39 Section 203 as well as the
absence of any judicial precedent upholding
stockholder rights plans cast a significant
shadow upon the enforceability of these
plans.40
In a very influential decision, the Delaware
Supreme Court in 1985 applied a heightened
scrutiny standard to board actions taken in
response to takeover threats. In Unocal
Corporation v. Mesa Petroleum Company, the
court held that a board of directors will be
afforded the benefit of the business judgment
rule if it can show that it had reasonable
grounds for believing that a threat existed and
that its response was proportional to the
threat.41 The Nevada Supreme Court has not
applied the Unocal standard to boards of
Nevada corporations. However, in 1997, a
U.S. District Court in Nevada applied the
Unocal standard to actions taken by the
directors of ITT Corporation in response to
a hostile tender offer made by Hilton Hotels
Corporation.42
Shortly after the Hilton decision, the
Nevada Legislature enacted S.B. 61, which
codified but also limited the Unocal standard.43 Nevada practitioners had been concerned about the possible broad application
of Unocal to change-in-control situations
involving Nevada corporations. Under
Nevada Revised Statutes Section 78.139, the
second prong of the Unocal standard, which
requires a proportional response, will be
applied if, and only if, the action impedes the
exercise of the rights of stockholders to vote
for or remove directors.44 Thus, the proportionality prong of the Unocal standard does
not apply to other antitakeover actions of the
board of directors. These actions are subject
to the general standard of care set forth in
Section 78.138(1) and have the benefit of
the business-judgment-rule presumption codified in Section 78.138(3).
In 1987, the Nevada Legislature adopted
a control share law that was patterned after
a similar law adopted the previous year by
Indiana. This action closely followed the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Indiana statute. 45
Nevada’s control share law operates by providing that an “acquiring person” and its
associates obtain voting rights in “control
shares” only to the extent conferred by a
vote of the stockholders. The statute also
provides for redemption of control shares in
certain circumstances.
Nevada also has had a business combination law on the books since 1991. This
law, like the control share law, is patterned
after Indiana’s statute. Generally, the law
operates to prohibit certain combinations
between a corporation and an interested
stockholder for a three-year period. After
this three-year moratorium, combinations
with an interested stockholder are permitted if certain qualitative and quantitative
conditions are met. California is among the
minority of states that has not adopted either
a control share or business combination law.46
California’s Extraterritorial Reach
In deciding whether to advise clients to incorporate outside of California, practitioners
must consider the California statutes that
purport to impose various provisions of the
state’s General Corporation Law on foreign
corporations. Corporations Code Section
2115, the most far-reaching of these statutes,
has been a part of California’s General
Corporation Law since the law was enacted
more than a quarter century ago. The logic
behind Section 2115 is straightforward: If a
foreign corporation has a majority of its contacts with California, then California has an
interest in applying its corporate laws to the
corporation even if that corporation has been
organized in another state.47
The tests that California has established
to implement this premise are also straightforward. Essentially there are two. The first
test is met when persons having addresses in
California hold more than 50 percent of the
corporation’s outstanding voting securities.
The second test focuses on where a corporation does most of its business. This test is met
when the average of the corporation’s payroll,
property, and sales factors are more than 50
percent for the latest full income year. These
sion and argues that it is intended not so
much to persuade but “to deter other states,
such as California and New York, from seeking to regulate the affairs of Delaware entities,
or, in the alternative, to create the very conditions which might convince federal actors to
prevent other states from doing so.”54
California courts are likely to be more
deferential to California law. Moreover, it
remains to be seen whether the courts will
conclude that every California corporate
statute imposed on a foreign corporation
involves the corporation’s “internal affairs.”55
In the meantime, practitioners should be
braced for races to the courthouse.
In most cases, Section 2115 will be a
source of concern for privately held corporations, for two reasons. First, a privately
held corporation located in California will
more likely satisfy the criteria for the application of the statute. Second, Section 2115
does not apply to corporations that either
have outstanding securities listed on the
New York Stock Exchange or the American
Stock Exchange or are designated as qualified for trading on the Nasdaq National
Market.56
Proponents of incorporating in Nevada
often tout the fact that Nevada has no corporate income tax.57 Accordingly, some business owners may be led to believe that they
can avoid paying California franchise tax
Resident Agents
of Nevada, Inc.
www.nevada.org
Commercial Registered Agents
Member, Nevada Registered Agent Association
Professionals in Forming Corporations & LLCs
Attorney Owned & Managed Since 1995
www.nevada.org
factors are reported on the corporation’s
California franchise tax return.48
If both of these tests are met, then Section
2115 specifies numerous provisions of the
General Corporation Law that will apply to
the corporation “to the exclusion of the law
of the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated.” These include provisions relating to
directors (i.e., annual election, removal, filling of vacancies, standard of care, indemnification, and liability for improper distributions to shareholders); limitations on
corporate distributions; shareholders (i.e.,
liability for unlawful distributions, annual
meeting requirement, cumulative voting, limitations on supermajority voting); corporate
transactions (i.e., limitations on sales of assets,
mergers and conversions, requirements for
conversions, reorganizations, and dissenters’
rights); records and reports; and rights of
inspection. In addition, Section 2115 subjects a foreign corporation to the possibility
of suit by the California attorney general for
violations of specified provisions of the
General Corporation Law.
While Section 2115 is the most expansive
of California’s outreach statutes, it is not the
only provision of the General Corporation
Law that requires the application of California
law. Thus, California’s statute governing
inspection of the share register is available to
shareholders of a foreign corporation that
has its principal executive offices in California
or that customarily holds meetings of its
board of directors in California.49 California
extends to directors of the same foreign corporations the absolute right to inspect corporate records.50 In addition, California provides shareholders of a foreign corporation the
right to inspect accounting books and records
and corporate minutes if the corporation
maintains those records or its principal executive offices in California.51 Finally, California’s requirement that a corporation provide
an annual report to its shareholders is applicable to a foreign corporation that either maintains its principal executive office in or customarily holds meetings of its board of
directors in California.52
To the extent that any of these California
outreach statutes applies, a corporation organized in Nevada may be subject to the very
California law provisions that it is seeking to
escape—including cumulative voting, for
example. Recently, the Delaware Supreme
Court refused to apply Section 2115 based on
the “internal affairs doctrine,” 53 which
requires that the law of the state of incorporation govern the internal affairs of a corporation. While this decision strongly suggests
that the Delaware courts will pay little respect
to California’s outreach statutes, it is not the
last word. Indeed, at least one legal scholar
criticizes the Delaware Supreme Court’s deci-
BASIC FORMATION PACKAGE – $250.00
INCLUDES:
Secretary of State Article Minimum Filing Fee
Review & Handling
Registered Agent Fee
LAWYER SPECIAL – $225.00
Annual Registered Agent fee – $100.00
TEL 775.882.4641
FAX 775.882.6818
EMAIL [email protected]
711 S. CARSON ST., SUITE 4, CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701
Incorporate in
Delaware
REGISTERED AGENTS SINCE 1978
Delaware Corporation or LLC
filed in 24 hours.
CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED
Global Corporate Services, Inc.
www.global-inter.net
(877) DELCORP
simply by incorporating their California business in Nevada. However, this is pure
codswallop. A business that has business
income from sources both within and outside
California is required to apportion its income
and pay California tax. The portion of the
corporation’s total income that has its source
in California is determined under Revenue
and Taxation Code Sections 25120 through
25141. In addition, a corporation with a
California “commercial domicile” is subject
to California tax on any income that is not
subject to apportionment.58 Thus, a corporation that does business in California cannot
escape California taxation by incorporating
in another state. The California Franchise
Tax Board is well aware of the use of Nevada
corporations to avoid California tax and has
even published a form titled “Don’t Gamble
with Your Taxes: Read the Fine Print about
Incorporating in Nevada.”59
California remains a popular chartering
state for privately held firms located in
California. However, it has proven remarkably ineffectual in retaining the charters of
publicly traded corporations located in the
state. While Delaware continues to attract
an overwhelming percentage of these emigrant corporations, Nevada has established
itself as a viable second choice. Because the
reasons for going out of state will vary from
firm to firm, there is no single right answer
to the question of where a business should
incorporate. For those firms looking for a
significantly different approach to California, a Nevada corporate charter is worth
considering.
■
1
Rachel Payeur-Narine
Leukemia Survivor
A Legacy From Your Client
Can Help Us Find The Cure.
In 1964, 3 percent of children with
acute lymphocytic leukemia lived
five years. Today, more than 87
percent survive.
Many research programs that made this
possible were funded by people who
included the Society in their estate plan.
For information about bequests,
contact us at 888.773.9958 or
[email protected].
Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen, Firms Decisions
Where to Incorporate, 46 J. LAW & ECON. 383, 39293 (2003). The data produced by these two authors
show that in the case of California headquartered,
publicly traded corporations, Delaware as of the end
of 1999 represented over 91 percent of the out-of-state
charters.
2 Despite achieving second place, Nevada still lags far
behind Delaware. Nevada claims only 2.66% of outof-state, publicly traded corporations. Yet, this places
Nevada significantly ahead of California, which claims
a minuscule .19% of out-of-state publicly traded corporations. Id. at 395. During the periods of 1980 to
1989 and 1990 to 1999, Nevada also ranked a distant
second behind Delaware (and well ahead of California)
in attracting incorporations among a sample of initial
public offerings. Robert Daines, The Incorporation
Choices of IPO Firms, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1559, 1583
(2002).
3 Bebchuk & Cohen, supra note 1, at 392-93.
4 CAL. CONST. of 1849, art. IV, §36.
5 Article XII of the 1879 Constitution devoted 16 sections specifically to corporations in general and another
seven to railroad and transportation companies.
6 CAL. CONST. of 1879, art. XII, §3.
7 Id. at art. XII, §9.
8 Henry W. Ballantine, Questions of Policy in Drafting
a Modern Corporation Law: California General
Corporation Law (1931), 19 CAL. L. REV. 465, 466
(1931).
9 NEV. CONST. art. 8, §3.
10 California’s General Corporation Law prescribes the
standard of care for directors but not officers. HAROLD
MARSH, JR., R. ROY FINKLE, & LARRY SONSINI, MARSH’S
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION LAW §11.02 (4th ed. 2001)
(“The statute does not purport to specify the duties of
officers of a corporation….”). However, some statutory standards applicable to officers can be found in
statutes governing the relationships between principal
and agent. See, e.g., LAB. CODE §§2850-66 (governing
the obligations of employees to employers).
11 1999 Nev. Stat. ch. 357. See Minutes of the Nevada
Senate Committee on Judiciary, Feb. 3, 1999, Exhibit
D.
12 CORP. CODE §309.
13 See Gaillard v. Natomas Co., 208 Cal. App. 3d
1250, 1264 (1989) (incorrectly describing Corporations
Code §309 as “codifying California’s business judgment rule”); MARSH, FINKLE & SONSINI, supra note 10,
at §11.03[A] (“[I]t is highly doubtful that the California
courts will hold that [Section 309] was intended to abolish the business judgment rule….”). See also 1975
Assembly Committee Comment to Section 309: “It is
intended that a person who performs his duties as a
director in accordance with this standard shall have no
liability by reason of being or having been a director.”
14 NEV. REV. STAT. §78.138(3).
15 NEV. REV. STAT. §78.138(7), added by S.B. 577, 2001
Nev. Stat. ch. 601.
16 2003 Nev. Stat. ch. 485.
17 CORP. CODE §§204(a)(10), 309(c).
18 CORP. CODE §204(a)(10).
19 Sanjai Bhagat & James A. Brickley, Cumulative
Voting: The Value of Minority Shareholder Voting
Rights, 27 J.L. & ECON. 339 (1984).
20 Ralph E. Axley, The Case against Cumulative Voting,
1950 WIS. L. REV. 278 (1950).
21 CAL. CONST. of 1879, art. XII, §12 (repealed).
22 Ballantine, supra note 8, at 484.
23 MARSH, FINKLE & SONSINI, supra note 10, at §12.02.
California’s attachment to cumulative voting is so
strong that governmental bodies are statutorily obligated to vote for resolutions authorizing cumulative
voting. GOV’T CODE §6900.
24 NEV. REV. STAT. §78.360. Delaware takes a similar opt-in approach to cumulative voting. DEL. CODE
ANN., tit. 8, §214.
25 1989 Cal. Stat. ch. 876, §2 (adding CORP. CODE
§301.5).
26 CORP. CODE §301.5(d). On January 13, 2006, the
Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order
approving the application of the Nasdaq Stock Market,
Inc., to register one of its subsidiaries, The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, as a national securities exchange.
SEC Rel. No. 34-53128, 71 FR 3550 (Jan. 13, 2006).
As the successor to the Nasdaq Stock Market, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC has operated as a national
securities exchange since August 1, 2006. In addition,
the Nasdaq National Market was renamed the NASDAQ Global Market effective July 1, 2006. The NASDAQ Global Market now contains two tiers: NASDAQ
Global Market and NASDAQ Global Select Market.
California has not yet amended the statute to reflect
these changes.
27 CORP. CODE §301.5(a).
28 For an in-depth discussion of the history and role of
supermajority voting rules, see Brett W. King, The
Use of Supermajority Voting Rules in Corporate
America: Majority Rule, Corporate Legitimacy, and
Minority Shareholder Protection, 21 DEL. J. CORP. L.
895 (1996).
29 NEV. REV. STAT. §78.320(1). However, there is
some question about the effectiveness of placing supermajority voting provisions in the bylaws alone.
30 CORP. CODE §204(a)(5).
31 Id. A supermajority vote requirement (not to exceed
662⁄3%) may be imposed for a class or series of preferred
shares designated as “preferred” or “preference”
regarding voluntary dissolution. CORP. CODE §402.5.
32 CORP. CODE §710. The determination of the number of persons holding shares of record must be made
in accordance with Corporations Code §605.
33 CORP. CODE §710(c). This exception was added at
the request of the Business Law Section of the California
State Bar for the purpose of allowing supermajority vote
provisions in late round venture capital financings.
S.B. 497 (Beverly), California Senate Floor Analysis,
Apr. 13, 1993, available at http://www.leginfo.ca
.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_479_cfa
_930413_111241_sen_floor.
34 Martin Lipton fathered the stockholder rights plan
in 1982 with the publication of a memorandum titled
“Warrant Dividend Plan.” Martin Lipton & Paul K.
Rowe, Pills, Polls and Professors: A Reply to Professor
Gilson, 27 DEL. J. CORP. L. 1, 9 (2002).
35 Moran v. Household Int’l, Inc., 490 A. 2d 1059, 1066
(Del. Ch. 1985).
36 Over the years, the Nevada Legislature has made
minor refinements to the wording of the statute. For
example, the phrase “or grants rights” was added in 2001
for the apparent purpose of clarifying that discrimination could be either positive or negative. 2001 Nev.
Stat. ch. 296, §10. In 2003, the legislature substituted
the word “signing” for “executing,” even though directors do not typically execute or sign stockholder rights
plans qua directors. 2003 Stat. ch. 485, §27.
37 See Guhan Subramanian, The Influence of Antitakeover Statutes on Incorporation Choice: Evidence
of the “Race” Debate and Antitakeover Overreaching,
150 U. PENN. L. REV. 1795, 1813-14 (2002) (listing 24
other states with statutory endorsement of shareholder
rights plans).
38 The reference in the statute to a “shareholders agreement” is not to any agreement among or with the
shareholders. Rather, the term means a written agreement among all the shareholders of a close corporation,
or if a close corporation has only one shareholder,
between that shareholder and the corporation. CORP.
CODE §186.
39 For example, Cisco Systems, Inc., a California corporation, adopted a shareholder rights plan in 1998 that
it terminated in 2005. Securities & Exchange
Commission Form 8-K (filed Mar. 30, 2005).
40 In 1997 Emeritus Corporation filed an action for
injunctive and declaratory relief against ARV Assisted
Living, Inc., challenging the validity of its shareholder
rights plan. Among other things, the complaint alleged
that the rights plan violated Corporations Code §§203
and 400 “in that under the terms of the pill [rights plan]
all shares of ARV are not granted the same rights,
preferences, privileges and restrictions.” Emeritus Corp.
v. ARV Assisted Living, Inc., O.C. Super. Ct. Case No.
787788 (Dec. 9, 1997), filed as an exhibit to Schedule
14d-1 by Emeritus Corporation with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Dec. 19, 1997, available
at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/949322
/0000950103-97-000758.txt. The lawsuit did not
result in a reported decision addressing the validity of
shareholder rights plans.
41 Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A. 2d 946
(Del. 1985).
42 Hilton Hotels Corp. v. ITT Corp., 978 F. Supp.
1342 (D. Nev. 1997). See Keith Paul Bishop, Battle for
Control of ITT Corporation Spotlights Nevada (and
Delaware) Corporate Law: Did Nevada Law Get
Stockholders a Better Deal? 12 INSIGHTS 15 (1998).
43 1999 Nev. Stat. ch. 357, §58.
44 See Minutes of the Nevada Senate Committee on
Judiciary, Feb. 3, 1999 (“Both standards are established
under Delaware law. Mr. Fowler [chairman, Business
Law Section, State Bar of Nevada] stated they wanted
to make sure that the directors did not have this higher
duty in a take-over situation unless they take an action
Dan F. Oakes
Bernadette M. Duran
(949) 388-0524
Seeking an Experienced Arbitrator/Mediator?
STEVEN RICHARD SAUER, ESQ.
COUNSELOR AT LAW • SINCE 1974
“He is truly a master in his art.”
6,000
Settled over 5,000 Federal and State Litigated Cases
323.933.6833 TELEPHONE ■ [email protected] E-MAIL
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 740, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
that might impede the right of stockholders to vote for
or against their staying in office as directors. He said
he thought the directors should have the benefit of
the business judgment rule until they do something that
might impede the right of stockholders to vote for
directors.”).
45 CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69,
107 S. Ct. 1637 (1987). The Indiana statute is often
referred to as a “second generation” of takeover statute.
The “first generation” antitakeover statutes generally
operated by requiring disclosure of specific information
and slowing down the process. See Edgar v. MITE
Corp., 457 U.S. 634 (1982) (striking down the first generation Illinois antitakeover law).
46 See Subramanian, supra note 37, at 1813-14 (listing
27 states with control share laws).
47 California’s General Corporation Law establishes an
elaborate taxonomy of corporations. A “domestic corporation” is a corporation formed under the laws of
California. CORP. CODE §162. The term “foreign corporation” generally refers to any corporation other than
a domestic corporation. CORP. CODE §171. The term
“corporation” is also frequently used and defined to
mean only a corporation organized under the California
General Corporation Law (as opposed, for example,
to corporations organized under California’s nonprofit
corporations law) and certain other domestic corporations. CORP. CODE §162.
48 The factors are fractions defined in California’s
Revenue and Taxation Code that are used to apportion taxes when a corporation has business activities
that are taxable in California as well as outside
California. See text, infra. Thus, a corporation’s “property factor” is a fraction, the numerator of which is the
average value of the corporation’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in California
during the taxable year, and the denominator of which
is the average value of all the corporation’s real and
tangible personal property owned or rented and used
during the taxable year. A corporation’s “payroll factor” is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total
amount paid in California during the taxable year by
the corporation for compensation, and the denominator of which is the total compensation paid everywhere during the taxable year. REV. & TAX CODE
§25132. A corporation’s “sales factor” is a fraction,
the numerator of which is the total sales of the corporation in California during the taxable year, and the
denominator of which is the total sales of the corporation everywhere during the taxable year. REV. & TAX
CODE §25134.
49 CORP. CODE §1600(d).
50 CORP. CODE §1602.
51 CORP. CODE §1601(a).
52 CORP. CODE §1501(g).
53 VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen,
Inc., 871 A. 2d 1108 (Del. 2005).
54 Timothy Glynn, Delaware’s Vantagepoint: The
Empire Strikes Back in the Post-Post-Enron Era, 102
NW. U. L. REV. 91, 95 (2008).
55 See Keith Paul Bishop, The War between the States—
Delaware’s Supreme Court Ignores California’s
Corporate Outreach Statute, 19 INSIGHTS 19 (July
2005).
56 CORP. CODE § 2115(c). See note 26, supra (California
has not yet updated the Corporations Code to reflect
the conversion of Nasdaq to an exchange.).
57 The Nevada Secretary of State Web site cites the lack
of corporate income taxes in response to the question, “Why incorporate in Nevada?” See http://sos
.state.nv.us/business/comm_rec/whyinc.asp.
58 “Commercial domicile” means the principal place
from which the trade or business of the taxpayer is
directed or managed. REV. & TAX. CODE §25120(b).
59 Available at http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc
/689.pdf.
The LOS ANGELES LAWYER
Semiannual Guide to
Expert Witnesses
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS/
RECONSTRUCTION
ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION/
MOTORCYCLE
A R TECH FORENSIC EXPERTS, INC.
18075 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 209, Encino, CA 91316,
(818) 344-2700, fax (818) 344-3777. Engineers: experienced, registered, advanced degrees, extensive testimony experience. Traffic accidents (all motor vehicle
types, bicycles, pedestrians), collisions, rollovers, skid
marks, visibility, signal phasing, time-motion, low-speed
impact. Industrial and construction accidents: OSHA issues. Automotive, industrial, consumer products: brakes,
seat belts, forklifts, machinery, tools, protective equipment, lawn mowers, heaters, chairs, fixtures, ladders,
scaffolds, fasteners. Premises liability: code analysis, stairways, ramps, doors, gates, windows, guardrails, pools,
and lighting. Slip-and-fall. Trip-and-fall. Biomechanics.
Safety. Human factors. See display ad on page 46.
EDWARD P. MILICH, PE
P.O. Box 5, Torrance, CA 90507, (310) 710-4708, fax
(310) 533-9152, e-mail: [email protected]. Web
site: www.epmengineering.com. Degrees/licenses: CA
Licensed PE in Mechanical Engineering, MS Mechanical
Engineering, BS Mechanical Engineering, Member: Society of Automotive Engineers Motorcycle Technical Committee, National Motorcycle Roadracing Champion, #1
Plate Holder. Expert Motorcycle Roadracing Licensee.
Published by Society of Automotive Engineers, Motorcyclist Magazine, et al. Mechanic/Machinist/Welder. Specialties: motorcycle dynamics, motorcycle performance
issues accident reconstruction, vehicle testing and data
acquisition, finite element analysis, Technical writing and
communications, 20 years of motorcycle experience, former NHTSA associate, Practical “Hands On” Mechanical
Engineer, reasonable rates, “I translate the language of
engineering to the understanding of the common man.”
See display ad on page 59.
ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION SPECIALISTS
(Field Test Engineering Inc,) 4510 Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 200, Long Beach, CA 90804, (800) 675-7667, fax
(562) 494-7667. Also: 11440 Bernardo Court, Suite 300,
San Diego, CA 92127, 8275 South Eastern Avenue, Suite
200, Las Vegas, NV 89123; 2900 Adams Street, Riverside, CA 92604, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, TX
79912. Web site: www.FieldAndTestEngineering.com.
Contact Robert F. Douglas, PE—engineering manager. Registered professional engineer in California and
Arizona, member—NCUTCD, I.T.F., ASTM, Transp. Research Board, ASCE, SAE, ATSSA, IEEE. Profile: Accident reconstruction, failure analysis, traffic, and transportation. Engineering: auto/truck/train/ped/bike/cycle
accidents. See display ad on page 51.
WILLIAM KUNZMAN, PE
1111 Town and Country #34, Orange, CA 92868,
(714) 973-8383, fax (714) 973-8821, e-mail: mail
@traffic-engineer.com. Web site: www.traffic-engineer
.com. Contact William Kunzman, PE. Traffic expert
witness since 1979, both defense and plaintiff. Auto,
pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle accidents. Largest
verdict: $10,300,000 in pedestrian accident case against
Los Angeles Unified School District. Largest settlement:
$2,000,000 solo vehicle accident case against Caltrans.
Before becoming expert witnesses, employed by Los Angeles County Road Department, Riverside County Road
Department, City of Irvine, and Federal Highway Administration. Knowledge of governmental agency procedures,
design, geometrics, signs, traffic controls, maintenance,
and pedestrian protection barriers. Hundreds of cases.
Undergraduate work—UCLA; graduate work—Yale University.
MR. TRUCK ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION &
RECONSTRUCTION
P.O. Box 398, Brentwood, CA 94513-0398, (800) 3374994, fax (925) 625-4995, e-mail: william@mrtruckar
.com. Contact William M. Jones. Accident analysis and
reconstruction. Court-qualified expert witness regarding
car vs. car, truck vs. car cases, trucking industry safety,
and driver training issues, including Power Point court
presentations. See display ad on page 61.
ACCOUNTING
ADVISORS/EXPERTS @ MCS ASSOCIATES
18881 Von Karman, Suite 1175, Irvine, CA 92612,
(949) 263-8700, fax (949) 263-0770, e-mail: experts
@mcsassociates.com. Web site: www.mcsassociates
.com. Contact Norman Katz, managing partner.
Nationally recognized banking, finance, insurance, and
real estate consulting group (established 1973). Experienced litigation consultants/experts include senior
bankers, lenders, consultants, economists, accountants,
insurance underwriters/brokers. Specialties: lending customs, practices, policies, in all types of lending (real estate, subprime, business/commercial, construction, consumer/credit card), banking operations/administration,
trusts and investments, economic analysis and valuations/damages assessment, insurance claims, coverages
and bad faith, real estate brokerage, appraisal, escrow,
and construction defects/disputes, and title insurance.
THE CAPANALYSIS GROUP, LLC
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.capanalysis
.com. Contact Evy M. Wild, BS, JD. Specialties: economic, financial, accounting, and statistical analysis for
complex litigation, arbitration, regulatory proceedings, and
strategic corporate decision making. Assist attorneys with
discovery, identification of relevant economic and financial
issues, preparation of analytical models, critique of opposing experts, and expert testimony in federal and state
courts, and before the FTC and DOJ. Handle matters before the EC, the ITC, and the U.S. court of International
Trade. Areas of expertise include antitrust (including cutting-edge analyses of market definition, market power,
coordinated interactions, and unilateral effects), economic
damages, business valuation, investigative and forensic
accounting and auditing, intellectual property (including
patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, and valuation of intellectual property), insurance coverage, contract
disputes and tort claims, mergers and acquisitions, securities fraud, and full range of jury consulting services. Degrees/licenses: CPAs, CFEs, CVAs, JDs, PhDs.
CORNERSTONE RESEARCH
633 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor, Los Angeles, CA
90071-2005, (213) 553-2500, fax (213) 553-2699,
e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www
.cornerstone.com. Contact George G. Strong, Jr. Cornerstone Research provides attorneys with expert testimony and economic and financial analyses in all phases
of commercial litigation. We work with faculty and industry
experts in a distinctive partnership that combines the
strengths of the business and academic worlds. Our
areas of expertise include identifying and supporting expert witnesses in intellectual property, antitrust, securities,
entertainment, real estate, financial institutions, and general business litigation.
FULCRUM FINANCIAL INQUIRY
888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2000, Los Angeles,
CA 90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300,
.fulcruminquiry.com. Contact David Nolte. Our professionals are experienced CPAs, MBAs, ASAs, CFAs, affiliated professors, and industry specialists. Our analysis
and research combined with unique presentation techniques have resulted in an unequaled record of successful
court cases and client recoveries. Our expertise encompasses damages analysis, lost profit studies, business
and intangible asset valuations, appraisals, fraud investigations, statistics, forensic economic analysis, royalty audits, strategic and market assessments, computer forensics, electronic discovery, and analysis of computerized
data. Degrees/licenses: CPAs, CFAs, ASAs, PhDs and
MBAs in accounting, finance, economics, and related
subjects. See display ad on page 1.
GLENN M. GELMAN & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND
BUSINESS CONSULTANTS
1940 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705, (714) 6672600, fax (714) 667-2636. Web site: www.gmgcpa.com.
Contact Glenn Gelman. Expert witness testimony,
strategy development, document discovery, deposition
assistance, computation of damages, arbitration consulting, forensic accounting, investigative auditing, rebuttal
testimony, fiduciary accountings, and trial exhibit
preparation.
GURSEY, SCHNEIDER & CO., LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA
90067, (310) 552-0960, fax (310) 557-3468, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.gursey.com.
Contact Roseanna Purzycki. Forensic accounting and
litigation support services in the areas of marital dissolution, civil litigation, business valuation and appraisal,
goodwill, business disputes, malpractice, tax matters,
bankruptcy, damage and cost-profit assessments, insurance claims, court accounting, tracing, and entertainment
industry litigation. See display ad on page 50.
HARGRAVE & HARGRAVE
520 Broadway, Suite 680, Santa Monica, CA 90401,
(310) 576-1090, fax (310) 576-1080, e-mail: terry
@taxwizard.com. Web site: www.taxwizard.com. Contact Terry M. Hargrave, CPA/ABV, CFE. Litigation services for family law and civil cases. Past chair of California
Society of CPAs’ Family Law Section, business valuation
instructor for California CPA Foundation. Services include
business valuations, income available for support, tracing
separate property, litigation consulting, real estate litigation, mediation, fraud investigations, damage calculation,
and other forensic accounting work.
KRYCLER, ERVIN, TAUBMAN, & WALHEIM
15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1040, Sherman Oaks,
CA 91403, (818) 995-1040, fax (818) 995-4124. Web
site: [email protected]. Contact Michael J. Krycler.
Litigation support, including forensic accounting, business
appraisals, family law accounting, business and professional valuations, damages, fraud investigations, and lost
earnings. Krycler, Ervin, Taubman & Walheim is a full-service accounting firm serving the legal community for more
than 20 years. See display ad on page 65.
DIANA G. LESGART, CPA, CFE, CVA,
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORP.
22024 Lassen Street, Suite 106, Chatsworth, CA 91311,
(818) 886-7140, fax (818) 886-7146, e-mail: Lesgart3
@msn.com. Contact Diana G. Lesgart, CPA, CFE,
CVA. Specialized accounting and litigation support services in the areas of family law litigation including tracing
of separate and community property assets, pension plan
tracing, forensic accounting, business valuations, goodwill
calculation, expert testimony, cash available for support,
Moore-Marsden calculations, fraud investigations, real estate analysis, community property balance sheet. Over 24
years of accounting experience with 20 years of litigation
support specialization. Appointed as Section 730 accounting expert. Ms. Lesgart’s profile can be found at www.jurispro.com/DianaLesgartCPACFEFCPA. Expert is fully
English/Spanish bilingual. See display ad on page 45.
MAYER HOFFMAN MCCAIN PC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.MHM-PC.com,
www.CBIZ.com. Contact Steve Franklin. Specializes in
business litigation; business valuation and appraisal, marital dissolutions, transactional due diligence, financial reconstruction, fraud investigation, family limited partnerships, commercial damage and lost profits computations
and business interruption. Experienced expert testimony
and tax controversy representation.
SCHULZE HAYNES LOEVENGUTH & CO.
660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1280, Los Angeles, CA
90017, (213) 627-8280, fax (213) 627-8301, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www
.schulzehaynes.com. Contact Karl J. Schulze, principal. Specialties: forensic business analysis and accounting, lost profits, economic damages, expert testimony,
discovery assistance, business valuations, construction
claims, corporate recovery, financial analysis and modeling, major professional organizations, and have experience across a broad spectrum of industries and business
issues. Degrees/licenses: CPA; CVA; CFE; ABV; PhDeconomics.
SMITH DICKSON, AN ACCOUNTANCY
CORPORATION
18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 420, Irvine, CA 92612,
(949) 553-1020, fax (949) 553-0249, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.smithdickson
.com. Contact Deborah Dickson, CPA. CPA 25+
years, testifying 15+ years, audits, reviews, evaluations of
companies, financial statement and business profitability
analysis, document review, reconstruction of accounting
records; asset, note, capital, expense, cash flow tracing,
lost revenues, lost profits, economic damages, business
dissolution, business valuations, IRS, FTB, EDD, and SBE
tax controversy/negotiations. Industries include service,
professionals, medical, manufacturing, distribution, real
estate, construction, escrow, and title.
STEINWALD & KAUFMAN, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Wilshire Bundy Plaza, 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite
501, Los Angeles, CA 90025, (310) 207-9980, fax (310)
207-5179. Contact Eric R. Steinwald, CPA. Forensic
accounting specialists with more than 25 years of experience. The firm’s emphasis is on expert testimony, litigation support, forensic accounting, insurance defense,
family law, insurance loss recover, business valuation,
loss of income, and bad faith damage. See display ad
on page 49.
STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON
Forensic Advisory Services. 2049 Century Park East,
Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90067. (866) 225-4511 toll
free. Web site: www.sjaccounting.com. The Stonefield
Josephson Forensic Advisory Services group provides
accounting experts to support your litigation, valuation,
bankruptcy, fraud investigation and risk assessment, third
party audit and other forensic accounting needs. As one
of the largest CPA firms based in California with six offices
and a global network of affiliated offices, we have the experience and skills you want. We serve all industries with
extremely strong expertise in entertainment, intellectual
property, apparel, manufacturing, energy, technology,
distribution, retail, partnerships, corporations and service
firms. Please contact the Principal in Charge, Sid Blum, at
310-432-7458. See display ad on page 5.
THOMAS NECHES & COMPANY LLP
609 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1106, Los Angeles, CA
90017-3848, (213) 624-8150, fax (213) 624-8152,
.thomasneches.com. Contact Thomas M. Neches,
CPA, ABV, CVA, CFE. Accounting, financial, business
valuation, and statistical analyses to assist attorneys in litigation. Expert testimony in state and federal courts.
Cases: Antitrust, breach of contract, fraud, intellectual
property, lost business value, lost profits, wrongful death,
and wrongful termination. Industries: banking, construction, entertainment, insurance, manufacturing, retail, securities, and wholesale. Credentials: certified public accountant/accredited in business valuation, certified valuation analyst, certified fraud examiner. Education: BA
(Mathematics) UC San Diego, MS (Operations Research)
UCLA. Teaching: Adjunct Professor, Loyola Law School.
CA 90064-1151, (310) 826-1040, fax (310) 826-1065.
Web site: www.zsscpa.com. Contact Lester J.
Schwartz, CPA, DABFE, DABFA, Michael D. Saltsman, CPA, MBA, David L. Bass, CPA, David Dichner,
CPA, ABV, CVA, Sandy Green, CPA. Accounting experts in forensic accounting, tax issues, business valuations, and appraisals, marital dissolutions, eminent domain, insurance losses, business interruption, goodwill,
economic analysis, investigative auditing, loss of earning,
commercial damages, and lost profits. Expert witness
testimony preparation, settlement negotiations, and consultations. See display ad on page 49.
ACCOUNTING MALPRACTICE
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
ACOUSTICS & VIBRATION
PCR SERVICES CORPORATION
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130, Santa Monica, CA
90401, (310) 451-4488, fax (310) 451-5279, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.pcrnet.com.
Contact: Amir Yazdanniyaz, P.E. PCR scientists provide problem solving and analysis with regard to environmental and architectural noise and vibration (e.g., HVAC,
building services, etc.), sound isolation (Title 24), noise
control, room finishes and geometry, impact assessments, and mitigation design.
AIR QUALITY
55 South Lake Avenue, Suite 215, Pasadena, CA, (626)
204-6170, fax (626) 204-6171, e-mail: h.rous@pcrnet
.com. Website: www.pcrnet.com. Contact: Heidi Rous,
CPP. PCR’s air quality scientists provide expert testimony
with regard to air quality impact analysis, health risk assessments, stationary source permitting, emission inventories, compliance audits, and green house gas (GHG) inventories.
ALLERGY/ASTHMA/IMMUNOLOGY
WHITE, ZUCKERMAN, WARSAVSKY, LUNA,
WOLF & HUNT
14455 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, CA
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
Miguel Drive, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660, (949)
219-9816, fax (949) 219-9095, 831 State Street, Suite
291, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 648-4088, fax (805)
963-4088, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact
Barbara Luna or Bill Wolf. Expert witness testimony for
complex litigation involving damage analyses of lost profits, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalties, lost earnings,
lost value of business, forensic accounting, fraud investigation, investigative analysis of liability, marital dissolution,
and tax planning and preparation. Excellent communicators with extensive testimony experience. Prior Big Four
accountants. Specialties include accounting, breach of
contract, business interruption, business dissolution, construction defects, delays, and cost overruns, fraud, insurance bad faith, intellectual property including trademark,
patent, and copyright infringement, and trade secrets,
malpractice, marital dissolution, personal injury, product liability, real estate, tax planning and preparation, IRS audit
defense, tracing, unfair advertising, unfair competition,
valuation of businesses, and wrongful termination. See
display ad on page 47.
ZIVETZ, SCHWARTZ & SALTSMAN, CPAS
11900 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 650, Los Angeles,
ROGER M. KATZ MD
Allergy Asthma Care Center, Inc. 11500 West Olympic
Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, CA 90064, (310) 3931550, fax (310) 478-3601, e-mail: [email protected]. Web
site: www.rogermkatzmd.com. Contact Roger M. Katz,
MD. IME/expert witness/review. Experienced plaintiff and
defense. Expert witness record review, IME.
ANESTHESIOLOGY
ROGER F. DONENFELD, MD
10557 Rocca Place, Los Angeles, CA 90077, (310)
471-3777, fax (323) 209-0010, e-mail: rfdonenfeld
@hotmail.com. Contact Roger F. Donenfeld, MD.
Chart review and depositions. Expert witness, board
certified, 1987. Anesthesiology fellowship-trained. Ivy
League, board review textbook author. Certified medical board of CA expertActive clinical anesthesia practice. Extensive medical legal experience.
APPRAISAL & VALUATION
CA 90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300,
.fulcruminquiry.com. Contact David Nolte. Our professionals are experienced CPAs, MBAs, ASAs, CFAs, affili-
ated professors, and industry specialists. Our analysis
HARGRAVE & HARGRAVE
(310) 576-1090, fax (310) 576-1080, e-mail: terry
DIANA G. LESGART, CPA, CFE, CVA
— A N A C C O U N T I N G C O R P O R AT I O N —
HIGGINS, MARCUS & LOVETT, INC.
90017, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.hmlinc
.com. Contact Mark C. Higgins, ASA, president. The
firm has over 25 years of litigation support and expert testimony experience in matters involving business valuation,
economic damages, intellectual property, loss of business
goodwill, and lost profits. Areas of practice include business disputes, eminent domain, bankruptcy, and corporate and marital dissolution. See display ad on page 53.
CA 91403, (818) 995-1040, fax (818) 995-4124. Web
✔
✔
✔
✔
Family Law Litigation Consulting
Certified Public Accountant
Certified Fraud Examiner
Certified Valuation Analyst
TEL 818-886-7140 • FAX 818-886-7146 • E-MAIL [email protected]
22024 LASSEN STREET, SUITE 106, CHATSWORTH, CA 91311
DepoSums
DEPOSITION SUMMARIES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
90401, (310) 451-4488, fax (310) 451-5279, e-mail:
[email protected]. Website: www.pcrnet.com.
Contact: Steve Nelson. PCR’s experienced archaeologists provide expert testimony with regards to cultural
resource CEQA/NEPA compliance, Section 106 NHPA
compliance, NAGPRA issues, National Register of Historic Places applications, cultural resource general plan
elements and ordinances, impact assessment, and mitigation measures.
➤ Experienced
summarizers
➤ 3-step proof-reading
➤ E-mailed direct to
process
your computer
Los Angeles’ Finest Digesting Service
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
800.789.DEPO • www.deposums.biz
ARCHITECTURE
LYNDEHURST, LTD
5535 West 64th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90056 (310)
410-8850, fax (310) 410-8893, e-mail: lyndehurst
@aol.com. Contact Richard A. Jampol, A.I.A. Specialties: a unique combination of experience encompassing
40 years as a real estate broker, architect, general contractor, and real estate consultant. Developer/manager of
office, industrial, retail, medical and residential projects;
special experience in leasing, property management, predesign planning, investment analysis, lease analysis, and
landlord/tenant disputes. Personally negotiated over
5,000 leases. Representation of lessor/lessees, developers, property owners, attorneys, and architects, including
expert witness testimony, litigation support, and standard
of care. Experienced in complex matters. Familiar with
courtroom procedures. Degrees and licenses: Architecture; General Contractor; Real Estate Broker.
Insurance Bad Faith Expert
Clinton E. Miller, J.D., BCFE
Author: How Insurance Companies Settle Cases
39 YEARS EXPERIENCE
Qualified Trial Insurance Expert in Civil & Criminal Cases Nationwide
• Coverage Disputes • Customs and Practices in the Insurance Industry
• Good Faith/Bad Faith Issues
(408) 279-1034 ■ FAX (408) 279-3562
– EXPERT WITNESS –
CONSTRUCTION
41 YEARS
CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE
SPECIALTIES:
Lawsuit Preparation/Residential
Construction, Single and Multi-family,
Hillside Construction, Foundations,
Vibration Trespass, Concrete, Floors, Tile,
Stone, Retaining Walls, Waterproofing,
Water Damages, Roofing, Sheet Metal,
Carpentry/Rough Framing, Stairs,
Materials/Costs, Building Codes,
Construction Contracts.
CIVIL EXPERIENCE:
Construction defect cases for insurance
companies and attorneys since 1992
COOK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
STEPHEN M. COOK
California Contractors License B431852
Nevada Contractors License B0070588
Graduate study in Construction
L.A. Business College, 1972
Tel:
818-438-4535 Fax: 818-595-0028
Email:
[email protected]
7131 Owensmouth Avenue, Canoga Park, CA 91303
SCHWARTZ / ROBERT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
42 Faculty Street, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, (805) 7771115, cell (805) 796-9092, fax (805) 777-1172, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Robert I. Schwartz, AIA.
Real property development procedures & practices, all
building types, sizes & phases. Professional evaluation of
building design errors & omissions, building code compliance & professional standards of practice. Forensic investigation of construction defects. Repair cost estimates.
Construction contract/subcontract performance—project
management administration & cost accounting, CPM
scheduling, cost estimating, change order administration,
quality assurance & building performance. Evaluation of
delay claims. Documentation of major property/casualty
insurance losses. Excellent litigation support & trial exhibit
preparation. Expert witness testimony. Experienced AAA
arbitrator & mediator. Large & complex cases. Member,
Dispute Resolution Boards.
ASSET SEARCH
BENCHMARK INVESTIGATIONS
32158 Camino Capistrano, # A-415, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, (800) 248-7721, fax (949) 248-0208,
e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.
BenchmarkInvestigations.com. Contact Jim Zimmer,
CPI. National agency. Professional investigations with
emphasis upon accuracy, detail, and expedience.
Asset/financial searches, background investigation, DMV
searches, domestic/marital cases, due diligence, process
service, surveillance/photograph, witness location, and
statements. LA branch plus correspondents nationwide.
Multilingual agents. Fully insured.
ATTORNEY FEES
LAW OFFICES OF PHILLIP FELDMAN
15250 Ventura Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403,
(818) 986-9890, fax (818) 986-1757, e-mail:
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]. Web sites: www
.LegalMalpracticeExperts.com; www.LegalEthicsExperts
.com. Contact Phillip Feldman. Certified SPECIALIST
professional liability-legal CA/ABA. Former judge pro
tem—25 years. FEE DISPUTE Arbitrator—31 years. Forty
years ETHICS, Bar prosecution/defense. Consulting EXPERT. Testifying EXPERT 28 years: standard of care,
causation, fiduciary duties, professional responsibility and
ethics, and fee disputes. Any underlying case—litigation,
transaction, family, administrative, state or federal. Former
accountant, degree BS, MBA. Former managing partner
plaintiff’s and defense’s firms. Also State Bar Defense
Counsel and preventative law.
AUDIO/VIDEO FORENSIC
AUDIO ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
1029 North Allen Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91104, (626)
798-9128, fax (626) 798-2378, e-mail: stereoms@aol
.com. Web site: www.wesdooley.com. Contact Wes
Dooley. Enhancement and authentication fixed price intelligibility evaluations. Audio and video evidence analysis.
AUTOMOTIVE ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION
DR. WILLIAM D. GUENTZLER
FORENSIC INTERNATIONAL
10298 Hawley Road, El Cajon, CA 92021, (619) 3909081, cell (619) 823-9081, fax (619) 390-9086, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact William D. Guentzler,
PhD. Dr. Guentzler has over 28 years of experience as an
expert witness and forensic examiner and 36 years as a
university professor. He is licensed in the state of Arizona
as a private investigator. His expertise includes auto,
truck, ATC, ATV, motorcycle, motor homes, and golf
carts. He also specializes in braking systems, ignition, fuel
systems, cooling, electrical and battery explosions, as
well as vehicle fire cause and origin.
AVIATION
AVIATION CONSULTING SERVICES
P.O. Box 1522, San Carlos, CA 94070, (650) 508-1079,
fax (650) 508-9005, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.avconsult.com. Contact Capt. Robert E. Norris.
Expertise: general aviation/airline ground/flight operations,
flight crew hiring, training, evaluation, checking, standard
of care dictated by FARs and ICAO, review of aircraft accidents attributable to “pilot error,” flight crew employability/earnings model, and wrongful termination/discrimination. Experience: UAL Captain, flight manager, FAA
Check Airman, Hughes Aircraft—engineering psychologist, owner/operator FAA-141 Flight School/FAA Maintenance repair facility, BS, ATP, Typed B-737,757/767,
DC8/10, flight dispatcher, Author.
BANKING
.com. Contact Norman Katz, managing partner. Nationally recognized banking, finance, insurance, and real
estate consulting group (established 1973). Experienced
litigation consultants/experts include senior bankers,
lenders, consultants, economists, accountants, insurance
underwriters/brokers. Specialties: lending customs, practices, policies, in all types of lending (real estate, subprime, business/commercial, construction, consumer/
credit card), banking operations/administration, trusts and
investments, economic analysis and valuations/damages
assessment, insurance claims, coverages and bad faith,
real estate brokerage, appraisal, escrow, and construction defects/disputes, and title insurance.
BANKRUPTCY/TAX
distribution, retail, partnerships, corporations, and service
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, CA, (949) 753-7001, fax
(949) 753-7002, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.pcrnet.com. Contact: Steve Nelson. PCR scientists provide expert testimony with regard to land use and
conservation policies (e.g., HCP/NCCP, general plan con-
Expert witnesses and litigation consultants for complex litigation
involving analyses of lost profits, lost earnings and lost value of
business, forensic accounting and fraud investigation
Other areas include marital dissolution, accounting and tax
Excellent communicators with extensive testimony experience
Offices in Los Angeles and Orange County
Call us today. With our litigation consulting, extensive experience and
expert testimony, you can focus your efforts where they are needed most.
818-981-4226 or 949-219-9816
www.wzwlw.com
[email protected]
servation elements, etc.), regulatory permitting, threatened and endangered species, CEQA compliance, impact assessment, and mitigation measures.
BIOMECHANICS/ RECONSTRUCTION /
HUMAN FACTORS
INSTITUTE OF RISK & SAFETY ANALYSES
Kenneth A. Solomon, PhD, PE, Post PhD, Chief Scientist. 5324 Canoga Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA 91364,
(818) 348-1133, fax (818) 348-4484, e-mail: biomech
@irsa.us. Web site: www.irsa.us. Specialized staff of 23,
broad range of consulting and expert testimony, 36 years
of courtroom experience. Accident reconstruction, biomechanics, human factors, safety, accident prevention, adequacy of warnings, COMPUTER ANIMATION and SIMULATIONS, construction defect, criminal defense, criminal
prosecution, premises, product integrity, product liability,
product testing, warnings, and lost income calculations.
Auto, bicycle, bus, chair, elevator, escalator, forklift, gate,
ladder, machinery, motorcycle, press, recreational equipment, rollercoaster, slip/trip and fall, stairs, swimming pool,
and truck. Litigation and claims; defense/plaintiff; educational seminars; and mediation and arbitration services.
BUSINESS
ROBERT C. ROSEN
Wells Fargo Center, 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite
362-1001, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.rosen-law.com. Specializing in securities law, federal securities law enforcement, securities arbitration, and
international securities, insider trading, NYSE, AMEX,
NASD disciplinary proceedings, broker-dealer, investment
company and investment adviser matters, liability under
federal and state securities laws, public and private offerings, Internet securities, and law firm liability. AV rated.
Former chair, LACBA Business and Corporations Law
Section; LLM, Harvard Law School. More than 35 years
practicing securities law, 12 years with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. Published
author/editor of securities regulations, including multivolume treatises. See display ad on page 73.
BUSINESS APPRAISAL/VALUATION
COHEN, MISKEI & MOWREY LLP
CA 91403, (818) 986-5070, fax (818) 986-5034, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.cmmcpas
.com. Contact Scott Mowrey. Specialties: consultants
who provide extensive experience, litigation support, and
expert testimony regarding forensic accountants, fraud investigations, economic damages, business valuations,
family law, bankruptcy, and reorganization. Degrees/license: CPAs, CFEs, MBAs. See display ad on page 57.
90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.fulcruminquiry
.com. Contact David Nolte. Our professionals are expe-
rienced CPAs, MBAs, ASAs, CFAs, affiliated professors,
and industry specialists. Our analysis and research combined with unique presentation techniques have resulted
in an unequaled record of successful court cases and
client recoveries. Our expertise encompasses damages
analysis, lost profit studies, business and intangible asset
valuations, appraisals, fraud investigations, statistics,
forensic economic analysis, royalty audits, strategic and
market assessments, computer forensics, electronic discovery, and analysis of computerized data. Degrees/licenses: CPAs, CFAs, ASAs, PhDs and MBAs in accounting, finance, economics, and related subjects. See display ad on page 1.
90067, (310) 552-0960, fax (310) 557-3468, e-mail:
[email protected] or [email protected]. Web
site: www.gursey.com. Contact Robert Watts or
Stephan Wasserman. Gursey Schneider is an accounting firm specializing in forensic accounting, litigation support services, business valuation, and appraisal services
for a variety of purposes including marital dissolution, gift
and estate planning, eminent domain, goodwill loss, business disputes, malpractice, tax matters, bankruptcy,
damage and cost-profit assessments, insurance claims,
and entertainment industry litigation. GSCO has over 30
years experience as expert witnesses in litigation support.
HAYNIE & COMPANY, CPAS
4910 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
(949) 724-1880, fax (949) 724-1889, e-mail: sgabrielson
@hayniecpa.com. Web site: www.hayniecpa.com. Contact Steven C. Gabrielson. Alter ego, consulting and
expert witness testimony in a variety of practice areas:
commercial damages, ownership disputes, economic
analysis, business valuation, lost profits analysis, fraud/
forensic investigations, taxation, personal injury, wrongful
termination, professional liability, and expert cross examination. Extensive public speaking background assists in
courtroom presentations.
90017, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.hmlinc
.com. Contact Mark C. Higgins, ASA, president. The
firm has over 25 years of litigation support and expert testimony experience in matters involving business valuation,
economic damages, intellectual property, loss of business
goodwill, and lost profits. Areas of practice include business disputes, eminent domain, bankruptcy, and corporate and marital dissolution. See display ad on page 53.
LEWIS, JOFFE & CO, LLP
90024, (310) 475-5676, fax (310) 475-5268. Contact
Brian Lewis, CPA, CVA. Forensic accounting, business
valuations, cash spendable reports, estate, and trust and
income tax services.
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
CA 90017, (213) 627-8280, fax (213) 627-8301, e-mail:
SINAIKO HEALTHCARE CONSULTING, INC.
90067, (310) 551-5252, fax (310) 551-5414, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.sinaiko.com.
Contact Jeff Sinaiko. Sinaiko is a nationally recognized
healthcare consulting firm. Our professionals are handpicked for their broad understanding of the industry, detailed expertise and superior communication skills. Clients
have found this expertise invaluable in litigation support
where there is no substitute for experience. Sinaiko’s litigation support practice includes, among others, industry
standard practices evaluations; Medicare/Medicaid fraud;
provider/payor payment disputes; business valuation;
transaction disputes; and facility and professional fee
billing.
90017-3848, (213) 624-8150, fax (213) 624-8152, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.thomasneches.com. Contact Thomas M. Neches, CPA, ABV,
CVA, CFE. Accounting, financial, business valuation, and
statistical analyses to assist attorneys in litigation. Expert
testimony in state and federal courts. Cases: Antitrust,
breach of contract, fraud, intellectual property, lost business value, lost profits, wrongful death, and wrongful termination. Industries: banking, construction, entertainment,
insurance, manufacturing, retail, securities, and wholesale. Credentials: certified public accountant/accredited in
business valuation, certified valuation analyst, certified
fraud examiner. Education: BA (Mathematics) UC San
Diego, MS (Operations Research) UCLA. Teaching: Adjunct Professor, Loyola Law School. See display ad on
page 63.
VICENTI, LLOYD & STUTZMAN LLP
2210 East Route 66, Suite 100, Glendora, CA 91740,
(626) 857-7300, fax (626) 857-7302, e-mail: RStutzman
@vlsllp.com. Web site: www.VLSLLP.com. Contact
Royce Stutzman, CVA, CPA/ABV, Chairman. At VLS,
we’ve built a team of certified valuation and forensic professionals with rich experiences and dedication to a wide
variety of attorneys and business owners. We provide responsible and effective litigation support and business
valuation services to hundreds of clients in California. We
conduct valuations related to mergers and acquisitions,
buy-sell agreements, purchase/sale of closely held businesses, and partner disputes. Our forensic accounting
experts assess the amount of an economic loss, whether
it be business interruption from casualty, unfair competition, condemnation, damage caused by others, or loss of
earnings from various events. Our fraud investigation
team reviews documentation, interviews witnesses and
suspects, and assesses evidence to resolve allegations.
We provide expert witness testimony and implement
fraud prevention programs. We pride ourselves on the
quality of the relationships we build and the outcomes we
achieve for our clients. Call us today for your free consultation at (626) 857-7300. Making A Positive Difference
Since 1953.
WOLF & HUNT
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
963-4088, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact Barbara Luna or Bill Wolf. Expert witness testimony for
CHEMICALS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
KHB CONSULTING SERVICES
Toll free (866) CHEM-EXPT, (866) 243-6397, e-mail:
.khbconsulting.com. Contact Dr. Kenneth H. Brown.
Area of expertise: household chemicals, industrial chemicals, hazardous materials, aerosols and spray products,
paint and coatings, labels and warnings, and laboratory
testing and analysis. We provide research, case file review, site visit, testing, failure analysis, reports, deposition
and courtroom testimony. Types of cases include product
liability, premises liability, and toxic test. We translate
chemical jargon unto easy-to-understand language. See
CHARLES PEREYRA-SUAREZ
MEDIATOR, ARBITRATOR AND EXPERT WITNESS
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
• Trial/Appellate Attorney, U.S. Justice Department
Civil Rights Division
• Federal Prosecutor in Los Angeles
• Litigation Partner in Two National Law Firms
• Judge Pro Tem, Los Angeles Superior Court
• Diverse ADR and Expert Witness Practice
445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3200, Los Angeles CA 90071
Tel 213.623.5923 Fax 213.623.1890 http://www.cpslawfirm.com
CIVIL LITIGATION
90067, (310) 552-0960, fax (310) 557-3468. 20355
Hawthorne Boulevard, First Floor, Torrance, CA 90503,
(310) 370-6122, fax (310) 370-6188, e-mail: rwatts
@gursey.com or [email protected]. Web site:
www.gursey.com. Contact Robert Watts or Stephan
Wasserman. Gursey Schneider specializes in forensic
accounting and litigation support services in the areas of
civil litigation, business disputes, bankruptcy, damage and
cost-profit insurance claims, court accountings, fraud investigations, accounting malpractice, intellectual property,
construction, government accounting and entertainment
litigation. Gursey Schneider has over 30 years of experience as expert witnesses in accounting related matters.
COMPUTER EVIDENCE DISCOVERY
COSGROVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
7411 Earldom Avenue, Playa del Rey, CA 90293, (310)
823-9448, fax (310) 821-4021, e-mail: jcosgrove
@computer.org. Web site: www.cosgrovecomputer.com.
Contact John Cosgrove. John Cosgrove, PE, has over
45 years’ experience in computer systems and has been
a self-employed, consulting software engineer since
1970. He was a part-time lecturer in the UCLA School of
Engineering and LMU graduate school. He provided an
invited article, “Software Engineering & Litigation,” for the
Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. He is a Certified
Forensic Consultant (CFC), holds the CDP, is a member
of ACM, ACFEI, FEWA, a life senior member of IEEE
Computer Society, NSPE, a Fellow of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers (an affiliate of NSPE), and a
professional engineer in California. Formal education includes a BSEE from Loyola University and a master of engineering from UCLA.
COMPUTER FORENSICS
ROBERT J. ABEND, PE
1658 Laraine Circle, San Pedro, CA 90732, cell (310)
346-6543, (310) 221-0716, e-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.linkline.com/personal/rabend. Specialties:
Electrical engineering, computer forensics, data recovery,
electronic discovery, computer engineering, software,
electronics, microelectronics, electronics manufacturing,
intellectual property, and trade secret litigation. Technical
support during case preparation. Practiced at court and
deposition testimony. Thirty-five years of experience in the
electronics and computer industry. Fifteen years as a
forensic engineering consultant. References provided on
request. Degrees/licenses: BSEE, MS, Registered Professional Engineer, Certified EnCase Computer Forensic Examiner, FCC General Radiotelephone license.
DATACHASERS, INC.
P.O. Box 2861, Riverside, CA 92516-2861, (877)
DataExam, [877-328-2392], (951) 780-7892, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.DataChasers
.com. E-Discovery: Full e-discovery services…you give
us the mountain, we give you the mole hill: Tiff production,
de-duplication, redaction, bates stamped data, and electronically stored information (ESI) production. Computer
Forensic: Full forensic computer lab. Recovering deleted
text files (documents), graphics (pictures), date codes on
all files, e-mail, and tracing Internet activity. Intellectual
property cases; family law; employment law; probate resolution; asset verification; criminal law (prosecution or defense); etc. Litigation support, trial preparation, experienced expert witnesses, and professional courtroom displays. See display ad on page 52.
90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.fulcruminquiry.com. Contact David Nolte. Our professionals are
experienced CPAs, MBAs, ASAs, CFAs, affiliated professors, and industry specialists. Our analysis and research
combined with unique presentation techniques have resulted in an unequaled record of successful court cases
and client recoveries. Our expertise encompasses damages analysis, lost profit studies, business and intangible
asset valuations, appraisals, fraud investigations, statistics, forensic economic analysis, royalty audits, strategic
and market assessments, computer forensics, electronic
discovery, and analysis of computerized data. Degrees/licenses: CPAs, CFAs, ASAs, PhDs and MBAs in accounting, finance, economics, and related subjects. See display ad on page 1.
SETEC INVESTIGATIONS
8391 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 167, Los Angeles, CA
90048, (800) 748-5440, fax (323) 939-5481, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.setecinvestigations.com. Contact Todd Stefan. Setec Investigations offers unparalleled expertise in computer forensics
and enterprise investigations providing personalized,
case-specific forensic analysis and litigation support services for law firms and corporations. Setec Investigations
possesses the necessary combination of technical expertise, understanding of the legal system, and specialized
tools and processes enabling the discovery, collection, investigation, and production of electronic information for
investigating and handling computer-related crimes or
misuse. Our expertise includes computer forensics, electronic discovery, litigation support, and expert witness
testimony.
COMPUTERS
GREAT SCOTT ENTERPRISES, INC.
P.O. Box 42047, Tucson, AZ 85733, (866) 795-7166,
fax (520) 722-6796, e-mail: [email protected].
Web site: www.great-scott.com. The professional
computer forensics firm with 20+ years experience.
Deposition and trial experience. Computer and
technology forensics consulting specializing in recovery, acquisition, preservation, and analysis of
data as evidence, including data purposefully destroyed or obfuscated. Our team of experts will
manage your project to ensure data is properly
handled to meet and exceed industry standards
and evidentiary requirements are maintained. These
techniques can save data from Web sites, files, fax
machines, all types of media and e-mails. Experienced expert witness testimony in both court and
arbitration cases. Skilled at databases, source code
copyright, documents, e-mails, images, accounting
systems, hacking events, tracking down perpetrators, and password cracking.
JOHN LEVY, PHD
P.O. Box 1419, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956, (415) 6631818, fax (415) 663-0888, e-mail: info@johnlevyexpert.
com. Web site: http://johnlevyexpert.com. Contact John
Levy. A technical leader in computer, software and data
storage, Dr. Levy has experience in 30 cases related to
patent, copyright, trade secret, and other matters. An advisor to two U.S. District court judges. He has testified
and been deposed in multiple cases.
COMPUTERS/INFORMATION SCIENCES
ROBERT J. ABEND, PE
346-6543, (310) 221-0716, e-mail: rabend@linkline
.com Web site: www.linkline.com/personal/rabend. Specialties: Electrical engineering, computer forensics, data
recovery, electronic discovery, computer engineering,
software, electronics, microelectronics, electronics manufacturing, intellectual property, and trade secret litigation.
Technical support during case preparation. Practiced at
court and deposition testimony. Thirty-five years of experience in the electronics and computer industry. Fifteen
years as a forensic engineering consultant. References
provided on request. Degrees/licenses: BSEE, MS, Registered Professional Engineer, Certified EnCase Computer
Forensic Examiner, FCC General Radiotelephone license.
CORPORATE SCIENCES, INC.
3215 East Foothill Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91107,
(626) 440-7200, fax: (626) 440-1800, e-mail: jsdanton
[email protected]. Web site: www.corporatesciences.com.
Contact Dr. Joseph S. D’Antoni, managing principal. Corporate Sciences, Inc. provides financial analysis
and expert testimony in all types of commercial litigation.
Extensive experience in a broad range of industries for
computing economic damages, lost profits, valuation
and appraisal, fraud, breach of contract, partnership disputes, and bankruptcy related matters. Professionals
also serve as mediators, arbitrators, special masters,
third party administrators as well as consulting and testifying experts.
COSGROVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
7411 Earldom Avenue, Playa del Rey, CA 90293,
(310) 823-9448, fax (310) 821-4021, e-mail: jcosgrove
@computer.org. Web site: www.cosgrovecomputer.com.
Contact John Cosgrove. John Cosgrove, PE, has over
45 years’ experience in computer systems and has been
a self-employed, consulting software engineer since
1970. He was a part-time lecturer in the UCLA School of
Engineering and LMU graduate school. He provided an
invited article, “Software Engineering & Litigation,” for the
Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. He is a Certified
Forensic Consultant (CFC), holds the CDP, is a member
of ACM, ACFEI, FEWA, a Life Senior member of IEEE
Computer Society, NSPE, a Fellow of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers (an affiliate of NSPE), and a
professional engineer in California. Formal education includes a BSEE from Loyola University and a master of engineering from UCLA.
David L. Ray
Saltzburg, Ray & Bergman, LLP
Partnerships and Corporate Dissolutions
Government Enforcement Receivership Actions
Receivership
Partition Actions/Marital Dissolution
TEL
FAX
(310) 481-6700
(310) 481-6707
e-mail: [email protected] • www.srblaw.com
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600, Los Angeles CA 90025
INFOSCI INC.
P.O. Box 7117, Menlo Park, CA 94026-7117, (650) 8541567, fax (650) 854-1568. Contact Ned Chapin. SOA—
Service-oriented architecture, computer software design,
intellectual property, IT (Information Technology) performance and alignment, IT governance, software engineering, IT personnel management, and computer applications. Background: PhD, PE (Professional Engineer), CISA
(Certified Information Systems Auditor), more than 30
years of diversified experience in IT/IS, and have served
as expert witness.
CONSTRUCTION
ABACUS PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.
20201 SW Birth Street, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA
92660, (949) 851-1015, fax (949) 851-0409, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.abacuspm
.com. Contact Russell Thompson. Expert witness.
Cost estimation, construction management analysis,
delay analysis, and professionally trained mediator and arbitrator. Lead expert with over 25 years of experience in
construction industry.
ROBERT BERRIGAN
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & LONG LLP
P.O. Box 13711, Sacramento, CA 95853, 4711,
(916) 978-3434, fax (916) 978-3430, e-mail: rberrigan
@mathenysears.com. Web site: www.mathenysears.com.
Contact Robert Berrigan. Specialties: Contractor licensing issues; proper license class to perform work; B &
P section 7031 issues. Contractor State License Board
(CSLB) investigations and disciplinary proceedings; obtaining licenses or documents from CSLB. Also violations
of subletting and subcontracting Fair Practice Act. Expert
witness at trial/arbitration. Degrees/licenses: BA; JD;
Commercial Pilot; SEL; MEL.
One Source.
■
■
■
■
DIRECTORY
MCLE-APPROVED PROGRAMS
REGIONAL CHAPTER MEETINGS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, AND
TEXAS, MIDWEST & ARIZONA
ANNUAL EXPERT WITNESS
EXPERT WITNESS
SUMMIT & CONFERENCE
■
■
A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF CONSULTANTS PROVIDING
FORENSIC SERVICES
ONE
RELIABLE SOURCE FOR
HUNDREDS OF QUALIFIED EXPERTS
IN ALL DISCIPLINES
Visit WWW.FORENSIC.ORG for our
Expert Witness Directory online or contact
Forensic Expert Witness Association
today for your FREE desktop copy:
949.640.9903
[email protected]
www.forensic.org
Computer Evidence
DATACHASERS® INC.
CARPE DATUMTM…
…SEIZE THE DATA
COMPUTER FORENSICS
•
•
•
•
Recover Critical Data
E-Mail Recovery
Dates on All Files
Websites Visited
E-DISCOVERY
•
•
•
•
De-Duplication
Redaction
Bates Stamped Data
Electronic (ESI) Production
TEL.
951-780-7892
DATACHASERS.COM
CONTRACTORS & COST CONSULTANTS
2700 West Coast Highway, Suite 212, Newport Beach,
CA 92627, (949) 631-0553, fax (949) 631-0554, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Dennis St. Clair. Expertise in cost analysis and estimates, industry standards,
building code, construction defects, and general issues.
California General Building Contractor #319388; active
since 1976, Classification B, HIC. Thirty-five years of progressive, responsible, and diversified hands-on construction experience. Twenty years of expert witness and appraiser experience in construction disputes, property
claims, and litigation. Qualified by the state superior
courts of California and Nevada. Affiliations: American
Society of Professional Estimators; Past president,
Orange County Chapter 3 and Forensic Expert Witness
Association.
COOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
7131 Owensmouth Avenue, Canoga Park, CA 91303,
(818) 438-4535, fax (818) 595-0028, e-mail: scook16121
@aol.com. Contact Stephen M. Cook. Specialties:
Lawsuit preparation, residential construction, single and
multifamily, hillsides, foundations, concrete floors, retaining walls, waterproofing, water damages, roofing, carpentry/rough framing, tile, stone, materials/costs, and
building codes. Vibration trespass, expert witness, creditable, strong, concise testimony in mediation, arbitration
involving construction defect for insurance companies
and attorneys, consulting services for construction, document preparation, construction material lists, costs, building codes analysis, site inspections, and common construction industry standards of practice and its relationship with the California Building Codes. See display ad
on page 46.
DIVERSIFIED ENGINEERING OF
WESTLAKE, INC.
31157 Lobo Vista Road, Agoura, CA 91301, (818) 8658844, fax (818) 865-9944, e-mail: [email protected].
Web site: www.ateco.us. Contact L. Peter Petrovsky,
PE. Expert witness and consulting in applied civil and
mechanical engineering, engineering, building, and earthwork contracting. Our strength and experience is in combining engineering and contracting skills. Understanding
of the mechanical and civil engineering design and principles, combined with knowledge of the standards of use,
is essential to the ability to distill complex technical issue
to a palatable presentation in the appropriate forum.
FORENSIC CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
ENGINEERING, INC.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION.
90010, (213) 632-1310, (818) 943- 0661, fax (213) 6325299, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.ConstructionDefect.us. Forensic investigation of
regulatory compliance, construction, civil, structural,
building codes, industrial, environmental engineering issues and defects. Massie Munroe M.S. and P.E, licensed
civil engineer and expert witness with 23 years of engineering experience. She is trained and experienced in depositions, discovery, and interrogatories. Ms. Munroe has
made extensive courtroom appearances. She has been
recognized by Cambridge Who’s Who as one of the top
women engineers in the United States. She has been
recognized by Strathmore Who’s Who for being among
the outstanding professionals and engineers in the United
States. Additionally, this corporation can provide expert
witness for malpractice litigation of real estate transactions. See display ad on page 68.
FORENSISGROUP®
THE EXPERT OF EXPERTS®
3452 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite 1160, Pasadena, CA
91107, (800) 555-5422, (626) 795-5000, fax (626) 7951950, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.forensisgroup.com. Contact Mercy Steenwyk.
Thousands of our clients have gained the technical advantage and the competitive edge in their cases from our
resource group of high-quality experts in construction,
medical, engineering, product liability, safety, environmental, accident reconstruction, automotive, failure analysis, fires, explosions, slip and fall, real estate, economics,
appraisal, employment, computers, and other technical
and scientific disciplines. We provide you with a select
group of high-quality experts as expeditiously as possible.
Unsurpassed recruitment standards. Excellent client service. See display ad on page 45.
GLENN M. GELMAN & ASSOCIATES,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
AND BUSINESS CONSULTANTS
assistance, computation of damages, arbitration consulting, forensic accounting, investigative auditing, rebuttal
testimony, fiduciary accountings, and trial exhibit preparation.
LYNDEHURST, LTD
410-8850, fax (310) 410-8893, e-mail: lyndehurst@aol
.com. Contact Richard A. Jampol, A.I.A. Specialties: a
unique combination of experience encompassing 40
years as a real estate broker, architect, general contractor, and real estate consultant. Developer/manager of office, industrial, retail, medical and residential projects;
PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
(800) 655-PCCI. Contact marketing director. Construction contract disputes (claims) analysis, prep and
presentation, delay and monetary impact evaluation, including CPM schedules. Architectural, civil, structural,
mechanical, and electrical specialties. Full in-house courtroom visual exhibit preparation. Assistance in negotiations, mediation, arbitration, and litigation. Expert witness
testimony. Additional phone (310) 337-3131 or (916)
638-4848. See display ad on page 73.
PINNACLEONE, AN ARCADIS COMPANY
90071, (213) 486-9884, fax (213) 486-9894, e-mail:
[email protected]. PinnacleOne, an ARCADIS
Company is a national firm of leading construction consultants who promote a full range of professional services, including dispute avoidance and resolution, claims
analysis and management, litigation support, expert witness, project management, financial services, and more.
Operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCADIS,
PinnacleOne’s regional operations are located in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Irvine, and Sacramento.
SCHWARTZ / ROBERT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
42 Faculty Street, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, (805) 7771115, cell (805) 796-9092, fax (805) 777-1172, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Robert I. Schwartz, AIA.
Real property development procedures & practices, all
building types, sizes & phases. Professional evaluation of
building design errors & omissions, building code compliance & professional standards of practice. Forensic investigation of construction defects. Repair cost estimates. Construction contract/subcontract performance—project management administration & cost accounting, CPM scheduling, cost estimating, change order
administration, quality assurance & building performance.
Evaluation of delay claims. Documentation of major property/casualty insurance losses. Excellent litigation support
& trial exhibit preparation. Expert witness testimony. Ex-
perienced AAA arbitrator & mediator. Large & complex
cases. Member, Dispute Resolution Boards.
URS
90017, (213) 996-2549, fax (213) 996-2521, e-mail:
[email protected]. Expert witness for
entitlement, causation damages on design, construction,
and geotechnical environmental disputes. Experienced
in all types of construction projects. See display ad on
page 53.
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE ADR SERVICES
COMA CONSULTANTS, INC.
2220 Waterfront Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1935,
(949) 673-7273, cell (949) 246-4385, fax (949) 673-2104,
e-mail: [email protected]. Contact D. Gordon
Follett, MSc, PE, Principal/Owner. Construction dispute arbitrator and mediator. Panel of Neutrals for American Arbitration Association since 1996; Certified Senior
Mediator, Orange County Superior Court Mediation Program since 2003; Los Angeles County Superior Court
Panel of Mediators since 2004; Associate Member of
both the Orange County and Los Angeles County Bars.
Have arbitrated or successfully resolved through mediation numerous technically complex construction claims
and disputes. Working construction manager with over 40
years of construction experience. Pepperdine and American Arbitration Association trained. Professional member,
Southern California Mediation Association; Licensed Professional Engineer, and General Contractor. Also provides
Construction Dispute Prevention Services and litigation
support.
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES—LITIGATION
SUPPORT
Matthew Lankenau
213-996-2549
[email protected]
URS is the nation’s largest engineering, consulting and construction
services firm. URS specializes in the resolution of construction disputes.
Dispute Resolution & Forensic Analysis
Design/Construction Claims
Environmental Claims
Bid/Cost/Damage Analysis
Construction Defect Analysis
Delay/Acceleration/Disruption Analysis
Expert Witness Testimony
Insurance/Bond Claims
Technical Expertise
Architecture
Engineering
Scheduling
Construction Management
Cost Estimating & Auditing
Environmental
Geotechnical
CHEMICAL EXPERT WITNESS
AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
■
HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS
■ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
■ PAINT & COATINGS
■ LABELS & WARNINGS
■ LAB TESTING & ANALYSIS
■
DR. KENNETH H. BROWN
Toll-Free (866) CHEM-EXPT
[email protected]
COMA CONSULTANTS, INC.
2220 Waterfront Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1935,
(949) 673-7273, cell (949) 246-4385, fax (949) 673-2104,
e-mail: [email protected]. Contact D. Gordon
Follett, MSc, PE, Principal/Owner. Expert litigation
support for contractor/subcontractor/owner contract disputes—expert testimony, trial support, and consultation.
Working construction manager with over 40 years of construction experience. Has provided litigation support, both
as an expert witness and as a consulting expert, on a
multitude of technically complex construction claims and
litigation matters with values in excess of $10 million. Licensed professional engineer and general contractor. Also
provides construction dispute ADR services such as dispute prevention and resolution, mediation, and arbitration.
CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS
.BenchmarkInvestigations.com. Contact Jim Zimmer,
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
courts, and before the FTC and DOJ. Handle matters be-
ConfidenceAtThe Courthouse.
Business litigation is increasingly complex. That is why we believe valuation
issues must be addressed with the same meticulous care
as legal issues. Analysis must be clear. Opinions must be
defensible. Expert testimony must be thorough and
articulate. HML has extensive trial experience and can
provide legal counsel with a powerful resource for expert
testimony and litigation support.
For More Information Call 213-617-7775
Or visit us on the web at www.hmlinc.com
BUSINESS VALUATION • LOSS OF GOODWILL • ECONOMIC DAMAGES • LOST PROFITS
fore the EC, the ITC, and the U.S. court of International
CA 90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300, e-mail:
WOLF & HUNT
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
291, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 648-4088, fax
(805) 963-4088, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact
DISPUTE ANALYSIS
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
disputes and tort claims, mergers and acquisitions, secu-
rities fraud, and full range of jury consulting services. Degrees/licenses: CPAs, CFEs, CVAs, JDs, PhDs.
DOCUMENT EXAMINER
SANDRA L. HOMEWOOD, FORENSIC
DOCUMENT EXAMINER
1132 San Marino Drive, Suite 216, Lake San Marcos, CA
92078, (760) 931-2529, fax (760) 510-8412, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Sandra L.
Homewood. Highly skilled and experienced document
examiner and expert witness in many complex and high
profile civil and criminal cases with fully equipped document laboratory. Specializing in handwriting and handprinting identification, handwriting of the elderly in financial
elder abuse cases and will contests, and examination of
altered medical and corporate records. Trained in government laboratory including specialized training by the FBI
and Secret Service. Former government experience includes document examiner for the San Diego Police Department crime lab, Arizona State crime lab and San
Diego County District Attorney’s office. Currently in private, criminal, and civil practice.
DOCUMENT EXPERT
BLANCO & ASSOCIATES, INC.— FORENSIC
DOCUMENT EXAMINATIONS
655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA
91203, (818) 545-1155, fax (818) 545-1199, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.jimblanco.com.
Contact Jim Blanco. Former full time federal and state
government forensic document examiner (handwriting expert) with the US Treasury Federal Bureau of ATF and
California State Department of Justice. Court-qualified
and certified ABFDE (11/92 - 05/08). Signature, handwriting, and hand printing examinations, writer identification,
writer elimination, forgery and counterfeits, computer
printed or typewritten documents, medical chart evaluation (in medical malpractice cases), probate, wills, trusts,
real estate documents, deeds, and contracts.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
LIPIS CONSULTING, INC.
1355 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 208, Los Angeles, CA
90024, (310) 445-4393, fax (310) 445-4395, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.lipisconsulting
.com. Specialties: Twenty-five + years of experience as
plan designer, including 10 years of experience as expert.
Deposed multiple times, testified in court several times.
Degrees/licenses: BS, Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania; MBA, University of Chicago.
ECONOMIC DAMAGES
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
90071-2005, (213) 553-2500, fax (213) 553-2699, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.cornerstone
.com. Contact George G. Strong, Jr. Cornerstone Research provides attorneys with expert testimony and economic and financial analyses in all phases of commercial
litigation. We work with faculty and industry experts in a
distinctive partnership that combines the strengths of the
business and academic worlds. Our areas of expertise include identifying and supporting expert witnesses in intellectual property, antitrust, securities, entertainment, real
estate, financial institutions, and general business litigation.
ECON ONE RESEARCH, INC.
601 West Fifth Street, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071,
(213) 624-9600, fax (213) 624-6994, e-mail: lskylar
@econone.com. Web site: www.econone.com. Contact
Lisa Skylar. Econ One provides economic research,
consulting and expert testimony in many areas, including:
antitrust, intellectual property and patent infringement,
contract disputes, damages analysis/calculations, employment issues, and unfair competition. We offer inhouse expertise in applied economic theory, econometrics, statistics, and years of experience successfully dealing with the specific demands of the litigation process.
Econ One experts have testified in state and federal
courts; administrative, legislative and regulatory agencies,
and in arbitrations and mediations. We understand the
need for clear, accurate, persuasive answers to complex
problems. See display ad on page 65.
CA 90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300,
90017, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www
.hmlinc.com. Contact Mark C. Higgins, ASA, president. The firm has over 25 years of litigation support and
expert testimony experience in matters involving business
valuation, economic damages, intellectual property, loss
of business goodwill, and lost profits. Areas of practice include business disputes, eminent domain, bankruptcy,
and corporate and marital dissolution. See display ad on
page 53.
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
CA 90017, (213) 627-8280, fax (213) 627-8301,
90017-3848, (213) 624-8150, fax (213) 624-8152,
.thomasneches.com. Contact Thomas M. Neches,
CPA, ABV, CVA, CFE. Accounting, financial, business
valuation, and statistical analyses to assist attorneys in litigation. Expert testimony in state and federal courts.
Cases: Antitrust, breach of contract, fraud, intellectual
property, lost business value, lost profits, wrongful death,
and wrongful termination. Industries: banking, construction, entertainment, insurance, manufacturing, retail, securities, and wholesale. Credentials: certified public ac-
countant/accredited in business valuation, certified valuation analyst, certified fraud examiner. Education: BA
(Mathematics) UC San Diego, MS (Operations Research)
UCLA. Teaching: Adjunct Professor, Loyola Law School.
Since 1953.
WOLF & HUNT
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
ECONOMICS
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.capanalysis.
com. Contact Evy M. Wild, BS, JD. Specialties: economic, financial, accounting, and statistical analysis for
patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, and valua-
tion of intellectual property), insurance coverage, contract
CA 91403, (818) 986-5070, fax (818) 986-5034, e-mail:
90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300, e-mail: dnolte
@fulcruminquiry.com. Web site: www.fulcruminquiry.com.
Contact David Nolte. Our professionals are experienced
CPAs, MBAs, ASAs, CFAs, affiliated professors, and industry specialists. Our analysis and research combined
with unique presentation techniques have resulted in an
unequaled record of successful court cases and client recoveries. Our expertise encompasses damages analysis,
lost profit studies, business and intangible asset valuations, appraisals, fraud investigations, statistics, forensic
economic analysis, royalty audits, strategic and market
assessments, computer forensics, electronic discovery,
and analysis of computerized data. Degrees/licenses:
CPAs, CFAs, ASAs, PhDs and MBAs in accounting, finance, economics, and related subjects. See display ad
on page 1.
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
ELECTRICAL
ROBERT J. ABEND, PE
346-6543, (310) 221-0716, e-mail: [email protected]
ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS
JAMES A. SMITH, CONSULTANT
2562 Treasure Drive, Suite 4102, Santa Barbara, CA
93105-4177, (805) 687-7911, fax (805) 687-0832, e-mail:
[email protected]. Electrical accidents, electrocution
and electric shock, analyzing what happened and why,
consulting on case strategy, and being an expert witness,
National Electric Code compliance, California GO-95
compliance, National Electric Safety Code compliance,
protective relaying, and equipment and product testing.
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ALOHA SYSTEMS
8539 Barnwood Lane, Riverside, CA 92508-7126, (951)
780-9903, fax (951) 789-0783, e-mail: marks@alohasys
.com. Web site: www.pwrexpert.com. Contact Dr. Mark
Shirilau. Electricity and electric utility power systems,
rates, and billing responsibilities. PhD in power systems—
generation, transmission, distribution, energy use and
conservation. PE and licensed contractor. Former utility
employee.
CTG FORENSICS, INC.
16 Technology Drive, Suite 109, Irvine, CA 92618,
(949) 790-0010, fax (949) 790-0020, e-mail: mlewis
@CTGforensics.com. Web site: www.CTGforensics.com.
Contact Dr. Malcolm Lewis, PE. Construction-related
engineering, plumbing, mechanical (heating, ventilating,
A/C) and electrical (power, lighting), energy systems, residential and nonresidential buildings, construction defects,
construction claims, and mold.
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
ROBERT J. ABEND, PE
346-6543, (310) 221-0716, e-mail: [email protected].
SETEC INVESTIGATIONS
8391 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 167, Los Angeles, CA
90048, (800) 748-5440, fax (323) 939-5481, e-mail:
.setecinvestigations.com. Contact Todd Stefan. Setec
Investigations offers unparalleled expertise in computer
forensics and enterprise investigations providing personalized, case-specific forensic analysis and litigation support
services for law firms and corporations. Setec Investigations possesses the necessary combination of technical
expertise, understanding of the legal system, and specialized tools and processes enabling the discovery, collection, investigation, and production of electronic information for investigating and handling computer-related
crimes or misuse. Our expertise includes computer forensics, electronic discovery, litigation support, and expert
witness testimony.
EMPLOYMENT LAW
EQUILAW
10061 Riverside Drive, # 536, Toluca Lake, CA 91602,
(818) 762-7676, fax (818) 762-8003, e-mail: jyanow
@equilaw.com. Web site: www.equilaw.com. Contact
Julie B Yanow, Principal. Over two decades of employment and labor law experience. EquiLaw assists clients
with workplace investigations of harassment, discrimination, retaliation/other misconduct; workplace training in
harassment/discrimination prevention, HR practices,
management skills, and executive coaching. EquiLaw
also offers expert consulting/testimony regarding the prevention, investigation, elimination of unlawful workplace
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. See display
ad on page 59.
EMPLOYMENT/DISCRIMINATION/
HARASSMENT
HAIGHT CONSULTING
1726 Palisades Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, (310)
454-2988, fax (310) 454-4516. Contact Marcia Haight,
SPHR. Human resources expert knowledgeable in both
federal and California law. Twenty-five years’ corporate
human resources management experience plus over 19
years as a Human Resources Compliance Consultant in
California. Specializations include sexual harassment,
ADA/disability discrimination, other Title VII and FEHA discrimination and harassment, retaliation, FMLA/CFRA,
safety, and wrongful termination. Courtroom testimony
and deposition experience. Retained 60 percent by defense, 40 percent by plaintiff. Audit employer’s actions in
preventing and resolving discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation issues. Assess human resources policies and
practices for soundness, for comparison to prevailing
practices, and for compliance. Evaluate employer responsiveness to complaints and effectiveness of employer investigations. Assist counsel via preliminary case analysis,
discovery strategy, examination of documents, and expert
testimony.
BRIAN H. KLEINER, PHD, MBA
Professor of Human Resource Management, California
State University, 800 North State College Boulevard, LH640, Fullerton, CA 92834, (714) 879-9705, fax (714) 8795600. Contact Brian H. Kleiner, PhD. Specializations
include wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment, ADA, evaluation of policies and practices, reasonable care, progressive discipline, conducting thirdparty workplace investigations, retaliation, RIFs, statistics,
negligent hiring, promotion selections, CFRA/FMLA, compensation, wage and hours, ERISA, workplace violence,
and OSHA. Consultant to over 100 organizations. Over
500 publications. Five-time winner of CSUF Meritorious
Performance Award. Have given trial testimony in over 50
cases.
EMPLOYMENT/WAGE EARNING CAPACITY
CALIFORNIA CAREER SERVICES
6024 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
(323) 933-2900, fax (323) 933-9929. Web site: www
.californiacareerservices.com. Contact Susan W. Miller,
MA, [email protected], or Phillip D. Sidlow, MS,
[email protected]. Vocational examinations/labor market research and testimony on employability and earning capacity as well as educational options in
divorce, personal injury, and wrongful termination cases.
GOLDFARB AND ASSOCIATES
1101 Fremont Avenue, Suite 103, South Pasadena, CA
91030, (626) 441-9687, fax (626) 799-8736, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Howard
Goldfarb. Vocational rehabilitation consultant providing
expert witness testimony on employability and wage loss
in personal injury, marriage dissolution, ERISA, age discrimination, and sexual harassment.
PERSONNEL SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. Box 28597, Anaheim, CA 92809, (714) 281-8337,
fax (714) 281-2949, e-mail: mding@personnelsystems
.com. Web site: www.personnelsystems.com. Contact
Mae Lon Ding, MBA, CCP. Expert witness in employment, business dispute, disability, and divorce cases involving issues of employee or owner compensation, discrimination, wrongful termination, exemption from overtime, labor market/employability, lost wages/benefits, employee performance, and evaluation of personnel policies
and practices. Nationally recognized human resource
management and compensation consultant, speaker, author of book and articles, university instructor. Quoted in
Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, Business
Week, Workforce, and Working Woman. Over 16 years of
testifying in cases involving major national organizations in
a large variety of industries involving multiple plaintiffs.
MBA, Certified Compensation Professional.
ENGINEER/ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL
LAWRENCE KAMM
1515 Chatsworth Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92107, (619)
224-3494, fax (619) 224-3495, e-mail: ljkamm@ljkamm
.com. Web site: www.ljkamm.com/home.htlm. Contact
Lawrence Kamm. Accident reconstruction, electrical,
and mechanical. Patent infringement and validity.
ENGINEER/GEOTECHNICAL
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
330 Village Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218, (408) 3545542, fax (408) 354-1852, e-mail: pshires@cottonshires
.com. Web site: www.cottonshires.com. Contact
Patrick O. Shires. Full-service geotechnical engineering
consulting firm specializing in investigation, design, arbitration, and expert witness testimony with offices in Los
Gatos and San Andreas, California. Earth movement (settlement, soil creep, landslides, tunneling and expansive
soil), foundation distress (movement and cracking of
structures), drainage and grading (seeping slabs and
ponding water in crawlspace), pavement and slabs
(cracking and separating), retaining walls (movement,
cracking and failures), pipelines, flooding and hydrology,
design and construction deficiencies, expert testimony at
over 75 trials (municipal, superior and federal); 100+ depositions; 200+ settlement conference in southern and
northern California and Hawaii.
ENGINEER/TRAFFIC
TRUST DEED FORECLOSURES
EXPERT WITNESS
“Industry Specialists For Over 18 Years”
Witkin & Eisinger we specialize in the Non-Judicial
of obligations secured by real property
Aor trealForeclosure
and personal property (mixed collateral).
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
REAL ESTATE
When your client needs a foreclosure done professionally and at the lowest possible cost, please call us at:
Care, Duty & Broker Responsibility
Lease & Purchase Contracts
Condition of Premises
44 Years of Experience
1-800-950-6522
We have always offered free advice to all attorneys.
&
WITKIN
EISINGER, LLC
RICHARD G. WITKIN, ESQ. ◆ CAROLE EISINGER
JACK KARP
(310) 377-6349 FAX: (310) 868-2880
As an Expert Witness in Real Estate Litigation, Attorney
LAWRENCE H. JACOBSON
has consistently been on the Winning Team
• Real estate and
mortgage brokers’
standard of care
• Lawyer malpractice
in business and real
estate transactions
• Interpretation
of real estate
documents
Practicing real estate law in California since 1968. Member, Board of Governors, Beverly Hills Bar Association.
Former Vice President-Legal Affairs, California Association of Realtors. California Real Estate Broker since 1978.
LAWRENCE H. JACOBSON AB, UCLA 1964, JD UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW 1967
Tel 310.271.0747 Fax 310.271.0757 email [email protected] www.lawrencejacobson.com
LAW OFFICES: 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 1250, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
WILLIAM KUNZMAN, PE
1111 Town and Country #34, Orange, CA 92868,
(714) 973-8383, fax (714) 973-8821, e-mail: mail
@traffic-engineer.com. Web site: www.traffic-engineer
.com. Contact William Kunzman, PE. Traffic expert
witness since 1979, both defense and plaintiff. Auto,
pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle accidents. Largest
verdict: $10,300,000 in pedestrian accident case against
Los Angeles Unified School District. Largest settlement:
Undergraduate work—UCLA; graduate work—Yale University.
ENGINEERING
DIVERSIFIED ENGINEERING OF WESTLAKE,
INC.
31157 Lobo Vista Road, Agoura, CA 91301, (818) 8658844, fax (818) 865-9944, e-mail: [email protected].
Web site: www.ateco.us. Contact L. Peter Petrovsky,
PE. Expert witness and consulting in applied civil and mechanical engineering, engineering, building, and earthwork
contracting. Our strength and experience is in combining
engineering and contracting skills. Understanding of the
mechanical and civil engineering design and principles,
combined with knowledge of the standards of use, is essential to the ability to distill complex technical issue to a
palatable presentation in the appropriate forum.
FALLBROOK ENGINEERING
355 West Grand Avenue, Suite 4, Escondido, CA 92025,
(760) 489-5400, fax (760) 489-5412, e-mail: veronicav
@fallbrook-eng.com. Web site: www.fallbrook-eng.com.
Contact Richard P. Meyst. Fallbrook Engineering provides expert witness services in the areas of IP (patent infringement, invalidity, claim construction and trade dress),
personal injury, product liability, and product failure analysis. Our professionals have represented both plaintiff and
defendant. We have done analysis, prepared declarations, been deposed and testified in court. We have years
of design and development experience making us effective expert witnesses in all matters involving medical devices. Visit our website at www.fallbrook-eng.com.
FORENSISGROUP®
THE EXPERT OF EXPERTS®
3452 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite 1160, Pasadena, CA
91107, (800) 555-5422, (626) 795-5000, fax (626) 7951950, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.forensisgroup.com. Contact Mercy Steenwyk.
Thousands of our clients have gained the technical advantage and the competitive edge in their cases from our
resource group of high-quality experts in construction,
medical, engineering, product liability, safety, environmental, accident reconstruction, automotive, failure analysis,
fires, explosions, slip and fall, real estate, economics, appraisal, employment, computers, and other technical and
scientific disciplines. We provide you with a select group
of high-quality experts as expeditiously as possible. Unsurpassed recruitment standards. Excellent client service.
HICHBORN CONSULTING GROUP
1040 East Howell Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, (714)
637-7400, fax (714) 637-7488, e-mail: info@hichborn
.com. Web site: www.hichborn.com. Contact Geoffrey
Hichborn Sr, PE. General civil design with specialties
featuring forensic investigations of concrete work and
concrete products, concrete, cement and related materials expertise, construction practices and materials evaluation, repair recommendations, construction observation,
public works/residential/commercial/industrial, and specially designed tests of distressed materials.
HARGIS + ASSOCIATES, INC.
2365 Northside Drive, Suite C-100, San Diego, CA
92108, (800) 554-2744, (619) 521-0165, fax (619) 5218580, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.hargis
.com. Contact David R. Hargis, PhD, PG. Expert witness testimony, technical consultation, and litigation support concerning hydrogeologic assessments to evaluate
groundwater supply, basin studies, nature/extent of
soil/groundwater contamination, source identification,
identification of potentially responsible parties, cost allocation studies, and negotiations with USEPA and state regulatory agencies involving cleanup levels and approval of
RI/FS/RD/RA documents for various state and federal Superfund sites. See display ad on page 61.
PACIFIC HEALTH & SAFETY
CONSULTING, INC.
2192 Martin, Suite 230, Irvine, CA 92612, (949) 2534065, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.phsc-web.com. Contact Tim Morrison. Providing quality consultation and expert witness for mold,
bacteria, lead, and asbestos. Certified training for health
and safety, OSHA, and AQMD regulations. See display
ad on page 67.
90401, (310) 451-4488, fax (310) 451-5279, e-mail:
Contact Gregory J. Broughton. PCR provides authoritative and experienced expert testimony related to matters
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and regarding technical aspects of: biological resources, archaeological or historic resources, air quality, human health risk, meteorology, environmental acoustics, vibration, acoustic mitigation, public utility and services systems, land use policy,
and scenic and aesthetic resources.
ROGGENKAMP ERICKSON & ASSOCIATES, PC
10000 NE 7th Avenue, Suite 150, Vancouver, WA 98685,
(360) 573-4545, fax (360) 576-7606, e-mail: brandon
@reastructuralengineers.com. Web site: www
.Reastructuralengineers.com. Contact Brandon W.
Erickson. Structural engineering; investigations of existing buildings’ structural problems due to design errors,
construction defects, age, climate, use, catastrophes,
and loadings; determine the cause(s) of structural distress; forensic evaluations; detailed documentation and
reports; litigation support to assist in the equitable resolution of liability claims; construction means and methods
engineering; design of structural remediation and repairs;
expert witness services; peer reviews; insurance claims
investigations.
THE REYNOLDS GROUP
P.O. Box 1996, Tustin, CA 92781-1996, (714) 730-5397,
fax (714) 730-6476, e-mail: edreynolds@reynolds-group
.com. Web site: www.reynolds-group.com. Contact Ed
Reynolds. Principal of the Reynolds Group, an environmental consulting, contracting, and consulting firm. Experienced in matters related to environmental contamination,
assessment and remediation, reasonable value of construction, and related financial matters. Degrees from
USC, BS, Civil Eng., 1981; University of Houston, MS,
Civil Eng., 1984; and Harvard, MBA, 1986. California registered civil engineer, licensed contractor. Adjunct faculty
member at the USC School of Engineering and member
of its Board of Councilors.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ESCROW
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
Education through monthly meetings, workshops, and
annual conference. Referral service. Eight chapters
throughout California, Texas, Midwest, and Arizona. See
TASA (TECHNICAL ADVISORY SERVICE FOR
ATTORNEYS) EXPERTS IN ALL CATEGORIES
Contact Heather Williamson. (800) 523-2319, fax (800)
329-8272. The best source for Consulting and Testifying
Experts, TASA provides time-saving, customized referrals
to outstanding, local, regional, and national specialists, including hard-to-find authorities in virtually all professions.
We offer more than 10,000 categories of expertise, including over 900 medical specialties through the
TASAmed division. Your request receives our prompt,
personal attention. TASA targets referrals, forwards resumes, and helps arrange your initial expert interview
calls. And if you don’t ultimately designate or engage an
expert we refer, there is NO CHARGE at all. Plaintiff/defense, civil/criminal cases. Experts can assist you at any
stage of your case from early case merit assessment to
deposition and testimony. Sample expertise categories include accident reconstruction, banking, computers, construction, economics, electronics, engineering, forensic
accounting, healthcare, intellectual property, machine design, medical devices, mold, OSHA, personal injury, product liability, safety, security, and toxicology. Serving California law and insurance firms of all sizes. Benefit from
over 50 years of TASA Group experience. Please see insert in this issue and display ad on page 65.
EXPERT WITNESS
AMFS MEDICAL EXPERTS NATIONWIDE
2000 Powell Street, Suite 520, Emeryville, CA 94608,
(800) 275-8903. Web site: www.AMFS.com. Medical experts for malpractice and personal injury cases. AMFS is
America’s premier medical expert witness and consulting
company. We are a trusted partner with the legal community and provide a superior method of retaining medical
experts. Since 1990, we have provided board-certified
experts in over 10,000 malpractice and personal injury
cases with a 92% win-rate compared to the industry average of 28%. • 8,500+ experts in 250+ specialties, •
Practicing Physicians with Legal Experience, • No cost attorney consultations, • Record Review & Testimony, • Independent Medical Examinations (IME) & Autopsies, • Essential Affidavits & Reporting. Free Attorney Consultations. Discuss your case at no charge with a physician
who will identify and clarify your case issues to ensure you
retain the appropriate specialists. Case Reviews for
Merit. Have your case reviewed for merit in round-table
fashion by a multidisciplinary panel of practicing, boardcertified physicians. Review & Select Expert CVs. Our
experience, resources and large proprietary database enable us to quickly identify and interview a large number of
potential medical experts on your behalf and provide you
with the CVs of those who are best suited to your case.
EXPERT WITNESS WEB SITES
EXPERT4LAW—THE LEGAL MARKETPLACE
(213) 896-6561, fax (213) 613-1909, e-mail: forensics
@lacba.org. Web site: www.expert4law.org. Contact
Melissa Algaze. Still haven’t found who you’re looking
for? Click here! expert4law—The legal Marketplace is the
best online directory for finding expert witnesses, legal
consultants, litigation support, lawyer-to-lawyer networking, dispute resolution professionals, and law office technology. This comprehensive directory is the one-stop site
for your legal support needs. Available 24/7/365! Brought
to you by the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
EXPERT REFERRAL SERVICE
FAILURE ANALYSIS
FORENSIC EXPERT WITNESS ASSOCIATION
2402 Vista Nobleza, Newport Beach, CA 92660, (949)
640-9903, fax (949) 640-9911, e-mail: [email protected].
Web site: www.forensic.org. Contact Norma S. Fox,
executive director. Nonprofit professional association.
KARS ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC.
Testing and Research Labs, 2528 West Woodland Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92801-2636, (714) 527-7100, fax (714)
527-7169, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www
.karslab.com. Contact Drs. Ramesh J. Kar or Naresh
J. Kar. Southern California’s premier materials/mechanical/metallurgical/structural/forensics laboratory. Registered professional engineers with 20-plus years in metallurgical/forensic/structural failure analysis. Experienced
with automotive, bicycles, tires, fire, paint, plumbing, corrosion, and structural failures. We work on both plaintiff
and defendant cases. Complete in-house capabilities for
tests. Extensive deposition and courtroom experience
(civil and criminal investigations). Principals are fellows of
American Society for Metals and board-certified diplomates, American Board of Forensic Examiners. See display ad on page 69.
DR. WILLIAM D. GUENTZLER
FORENSIC INTERNATIONAL
10298 Hawley Road, El Cajon, CA 92021, (619) 3909081, cell (619) 823-9081, fax (619) 390-9086, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact William D. Guentzler,
PhD. Dr. Guentzler has over 28 years of experience as an
expert witness and forensic examiner and 36 years as a
University Professor. He is licensed in the state of Arizona
as a private investigator. His expertise includes auto,
truck, ATC, ATV, motorcycle, motor homes, and golf
carts. He also specializes in braking systems, ignition, fuel
systems, cooling, electrical and battery explosions, as
well as vehicle fire cause and origin.
ROGGENKAMP ERICKSON &
ASSOCIATES, PC
10000 NE 7th Avenue, Suite 150, Vancouver, WA
98685, (360) 573-4545, fax (360) 576-7606, e-mail:
Erickson. Structural engineering; investigations of existing
buildings’ structural problems due to design errors, construction defects, age, climate, use, catastrophes, and
loadings; determine the cause(s) of structural distress;
forensic evaluations; detailed documentation and reports;
litigation support to assist in the equitable resolution of liability claims; construction means and methods engineering;
design of structural remediation and repairs; expert witness
services; peer reviews; insurance claims investigations.
MOTORCYCLE EXPERT WITNESS
Edward P. Milich, P.E.
PO Box 5
Torrance CA 90507
310. 710. 4708 voice
310. 533. 9152 fax
[email protected]
www.epmengineering.com
EXPERIENCE
AREAS OF SPECIALITY
CA Licensed (#32551)
Professional Mechanical Engineer
M.S. in Mechanical Engineering
Motorcycle Road Racing Expert
License Holder
National Roadracing Champion,
#1 Plate Holder
Member, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Motorcycle Technical
Committee
20 Years of Motorcycle Experience
Former NHTSA Associate
Motorcycle Dynamics
Motorcycle Performance Analysis
Accident Reconstruction
Vehicle Testing & Data Acquisition
Finite Element Analysis
Technical Writing &
Communications
WHEN YOUR CASE REQUIRES
A CHAMPION
MICHAEL R. WEINRAUB, M.D.
BOARD CERTIFIED PEDIATRICIAN
30 YEARS PEDIATRIC PRACTICE EXPERIENCE
Areas of Pediatric Expert Litigation Support:
• Pediatric Malpractice
• Injury and Product Liability
• Developmental Disabilities
(Autism)
• Custody Evaluation
• Child Abuse and Neglect
OFFICE
• Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
• Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) &
(SBIS)
• Toxic Lead Exposure
• Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
(FASD)
213.236.3662 FAX 213.236.3663 E-MAIL [email protected]
515 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, #3600, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
FAMILY LAW
CALIFORNIA CAREER SERVICES
6024 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
(323) 933-2900, fax (323) 933-9929. Web site: www
.californiacareerservices.com. Contact Susan W. Miller,
MA, [email protected], or Phillip D. Sidlow, MS,
[email protected]. Vocational examinations/labor market research and testimony on employability and earning capacity as well as educational options in
divorce, personal injury, and wrongful termination cases.
CA 91403, (818) 986-5070, fax (818) 986-5034, e-mail:
90067, (310) 552-0960, fax (310) 557-3468. 20355
Hawthorne Boulevard, First Floor, Torrance, CA 90503,
(310) 370-6122, fax (310) 370-6188, e-mail: rwatts
@gursey.com or [email protected]. Web site: www
.gursey.com. Contact Robert Watts or Tracy Katz.
Forensic accounting and litigation support services in all
areas relating to marital dissolution; including, business
valuation, tracing and apportionment of real property and
assets, net spendable evaluations, determination of gross
cash flow available for support and analysis of reimbursement claims and marital standards of living. See display
ad on page 50.
❖ INVESTIGATIONS
Specializing in harassment, discrimination, and other misconduct
issues
❖ TRAINING/EDUCATION
Customized, enjoyable learning experiences — from anti-harassment
and HR practices programs to management skills training and
executive coaching
❖ EXPERT SERVICES
Concerning the prevention, investigation, and elimination of
unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace
◆ UC Berkeley and UCLA School of Law graduate
◆ Over two decades of experience in the employment/labor law areas
◆ Superb technical and interpersonal skills
10061 Riverside Dr., #536
Toluca Lake, CA 91602
Office: 818 762 7676 [email protected] Fax: 818 762 8003
HARGRAVE & HARGRAVE
(310) 576-1090, fax (310) 576-1080, e-mail: terry
91602, (818) 790-1851, fax (818) 790-7671, e-mail: dave
@mediationla.com. Web site: www.mediationla.com.
Contact David W. Dresnick, president. All real estate
matters, international trade disputes, accounting and financial statement disputes, corporate and small business, and disputes between large corporations and small
companies, and contract disputes of all kinds. All real estate, including evaluations, contracts, zoning, development, construction, secondary marketing,
borrowers/lenders, residential escrows, residential, commercial, apartment, lending, and contracts. See display
ad on page 4.
CA 91403, (818) 995-1040, fax (818) 995-4124. Web
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail wilde
@capanalysis.com. Web site: www.capanalysis.com.
Contact Evy M. Wild, BS, JD. Specialties: economic,
financial, accounting, and statistical analysis for complex
litigation, arbitration, regulatory proceedings, and strategic
corporate decision making. Assist attorneys with discovery, identification of relevant economic and financial issues, preparation of analytical models, critique of opposing experts, and expert testimony in federal and state
90024, (310) 475-5676, fax (310) 475-5268. Contact
WOLF & HUNT
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
291, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 648-4088, fax
(805) 963-4088, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact
FINANCIAL
underwriters/brokers. Specialties: lending customs, practices, policies, in all types of lending (real estate, subprime, business/commercial, construction,
consumer/credit card), banking operations/administration,
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION GROUP,
EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES
4441 Cahuenga Boulevard, Suite D, Toluca Lake, CA
90071-2005, (213) 553-2500, fax (213) 553-2699, e-mail:
.com. Contact George G. Strong Jr. Cornerstone Research provides attorneys with expert testimony and economic and financial analyses in all phases of commercial
CA 90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300,
HAYNIE & COMPANY, CPAS
4910 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, (949)
724-1880, fax (949) 724-1889, e-mail: sgabrielson
@hayniecpa.com. Web site: www.hayniecpa.com.
Contact Steven C. Gabrielson. Alter ego, consulting
and expert witness testimony in a variety of practice
areas: commercial damages, ownership disputes, economic analysis, business valuation, lost profits analysis,
fraud/forensic investigations, taxation, personal injury,
wrongful termination, professional liability, and expert
cross examination. Extensive public speaking background
assists in courtroom presentations.
FORENSIC ACCOUNTING
90071-2005, (213) 553-2500, fax (213) 553-2699, e-mail:
.com. Contact George G. Strong, Jr. Cornerstone Research provides attorneys with expert testimony and economic and financial analyses in all phases of commercial
CA 90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300,
90024, (310) 475-5676, fax (310) 475-5268. Contact
Since 1953.
FORENSIC ENGINEERING
ROGGENKAMP ERICKSON &
ASSOCIATES, PC
10000 NE 7th Avenue, Suite 150, Vancouver, WA 98685,
(360) 573-4545, fax (360) 576-7606, e-mail: brandon
@reastructuralengineers.com. Web site: www
Erickson. Structural engineering; investigations of existing buildings’ structural problems due to design errors,
construction defects, age, climate, use, catastrophes,
and loadings; determine the cause(s) of structural distress; forensic evaluations; detailed documentation and
reports; litigation support to assist in the equitable resolution of liability claims; construction means and methods
engineering; design of structural remediation and repairs;
expert witness services; peer reviews; insurance claims
investigations.
FORENSIC SCIENCES
PARK DIETZ & ASSOCIATES
2906 Lafayette, Newport Beach, CA 92663, (949)
723-2211, fax (949) 723-2212, e-mail: expert
@parkdietzassociates.com. Web site: www
.parkdietzassociates.com. Forensic consultants in medicine and the behavioral science. Forensic experts in psychiatry, neurology, pathology, medicine, surgery, psychology, neuropsychology, social work, criminology, security,
suicidology, sociology, and other medical and behavioral
specialties. See display ad on page 55.
MR. TRUCK, INC.
FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION &
TRUCK SAFETY
• Court Qualified Expert Witness
Regarding Car vs Car,
Car vs Bicycle, Truck vs Car,
Truck vs. Bicycle Cases
800 337 4994
• Low Speed Accident Analysis
• Trucking Industry Safety and
Driver Training Issues
• Power Point Court Presentations
WILLIAM M. JONES
CELL
925 518 7573
FAX
925 625 4994
925 625 4995
www.mrtruckar.com • [email protected]
POST OFFICE BOX 398, BRENTWOOD CA 94513-0398
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,
INC.
10035 Prospect Avenue, Suite 101, Santee, CA 920714398, (619) 449-9830, fax (619) 449-5824, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Don Shepardson.
Over 44 years experience as Principal Engineer on projects that varied from high-rise structures to 6,000 of acreresidential/commercial projects. Extensive expert witness experience over the last 25 years. Established electronic document delivery systems; Registered Civil Engineer in 10 states; Geotechnical Engineer and prior contractors license in California. Current cases in California
and Nevada.
HANDWRITING
SANDRA L. HOMEWOOD, FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER
92078, (760) 931-2529, fax (760) 510-8412, e-mail:
profile civil and criminal cases with fully equipped docu-
ment laboratory. Specializing in handwriting and handprinting identification, handwriting of the elderly in financial
HEALTHCARE
90067, (310) 551-5252, fax (310) 551-5414, e-mail: Jeff
transaction disputes; and facility and professional fee billing.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
90401, (310) 451-4488, fax (310) 451-5279, e-mail:
Contact: Margarita J. Wuellner, PhD. PCR’s credentialed historians provide expert testimony with regard to
CEQA/NEPA compliance, Section 106/110 NHPA compliance, historical architecture, National Register of Historic Places Applications, historic preservation general
plan elements and ordinances, impact assessment, and
mitigation measures.
HOTEL
MAURICE ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES LLC
880 Apollo Street, Suite 125, El Segundo, CA 90245,
(310) 640-9656, fax (310) 640-9276, e-mail: maurice
@mauricerobinson.com. Web site: www.mauricerobinson
.com. Contact R. Maurice Robinson, president. Hotel
and real estate industry business issues, including market,
economic and financial feasibility, valuation, and disputes
between owner-operator, borrower-lender, and franchisor-franchisee. Fluent in management contracts, license agreements, ground and building leases, partnership and JV agreement, concession contracts, development agreements, and loan docs. Can estimate damages
and appraise property values under multiple scenarios.
Expert witness testimony, litigation strategy, consultation
and support, damage calculations, lost profits analysis,
real estate appraisals, deal structuring, workouts, new development, strategic planning, market demand assessment, acquisition due diligence, and economic, financial,
and investment analysis. 30 years of experience.
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
RGA ENVIRONMENTAL CIH #1151
18662 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 330, Irvine, CA 92612,
(949) 428-7060, fax (949) 428-7089. Web site: www
.rgaenv.com. Contact Robert E. Gils. Industrial hygiene
consulting, certified industrial hygienist, engineering, expert witness, depositions, courtroom experience, indoor
air quality, sick building syndrome, mold, fungus, bacteria,
allergens, asbestos, lead based paints, solvent, heavy
metals, welding, carcinogens, ergonomics, testing and
monitoring, OSHA compliance, worker health and safety
training, specialty training classes, worker exposure monitoring and testing, construction defects, environmental
controls and testing, system design, smoke damage, insurance claims, cleanups, project design and management. Over 30 years of experience.
INSURANCE
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail: wilde
@capanalysis.com. Web site: www.capanalysis.com.
Contact Evy M. Wild, BS, JD. Specialties: economic, financial, accounting, and statistical analysis for complex
litigation, arbitration, regulatory proceedings, and strategic
corporate decision making. Assist attorneys with discovery, identification of relevant economic and financial issues, preparation of analytical models, critique of opposing experts, and expert testimony in federal and state
E.L. EVANS ASSOCIATES
3310 Airport Avenue, Box # 2, Santa Monica, CA 90405,
(310) 559-4005, fax (310) 390-9669, e-mail: elevans66
@yahoo.com. Contact Gene Evans. Good faith/bad
faith. Over 45 years’ experienceæclaims adjuster. Standards and practices in the industry, litigation support,
claims consultation, case review and evaluation, property/casualty claims, construction claims, uninsured/underinsured motorist claims, general liability, fire/water/
mold claims, damage assessment, professional liability
claims, appraisal under policy, arbitration, duty to defend,
advertising claims, coverage applications, and suspected
fraud claims. CV available on request. See display ad on
page 71.
HOWARD M. GARFIELD, ESQ
465 California Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA
94104, (415) 438-4545, fax (415) 397-6392, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.longlevit.com.
Contact Howard M. Garfield, Esq. Consultations and
testimony. Qualified as expert in both state and federal
courts in California.
LAUNIE ASSOCIATES, INC.
1165K Tunnel Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105, (805)
569-9175, fax (805) 687-8597, e-mail: [email protected].
Contact Joseph J. Launie, PhD, CPCU, insurance
professor, author, and consultant. Over 30 years of
experience as expert witness in state and federal courts.
Coauthor of books and articles on underwriting, insurance
company operations, and punitive damages. Consulting,
expert witness on underwriting, company and agency operations, and bad faith.
90025, (310) 268-2000, fax (310) 268-2001, e-mail:
CLINTON E. MILLER, JD, BCFE
INSURANCE BAD FAITH EXPERT
502 Park Avenue, San Jose, CA 95110, (408) 279-1034,
fax (408) 279-3562, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact
Clint Miller. Insurance expert regarding claims, underwriting, agent and brokers errors and omissions, coverage disputes, customs and practices, and bad faith. See
PAUL PAULIN & ASSOCIATES
567 West Channel Islands Boulevard, Suite 329, Port
Hueneme, CA 93041, (805) 985-3917, fax (805) 9856407, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact Paul Paulin.
Property/casualty insurance; surplus lives insurance;
agent/broker; standard of care; bad faith; insurance office
procedures practice; 37 years as agent/broker; former
chair Senate advisory commission on Business insurance.
Degrees/licenses: CPCU, AMIM, ASLI, broker/agent, life
agent, surplus lives agent.
JANICE A. RAMSAY, ESQ.
5 Savos, Irvine, CA 92603, (949) 854-9375, (949) 4005040 (cell), fax (949) 854-0073, e-mail: [email protected].
Contact Janice A. Ramsay, Esq. Experience in testifying in depositions and at trial. Can provide consultation to
litigation counsel on property insurance coverage issues
and proper claim handling. Practice law in property insurance specialty since 1971. Have acted as appraiser, arbitrator, and mediator in coverage disputes.
ROBERT HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
508 Twilight Trail, #200, Richardson, TX 75080, (972)
980-0088, fax (972) 233-1548, e-mail: joakley
@roberthughes.com. Web site: www.roberthughes.com.
Contact John Oakley. Founded in 1979, RHA is an international insurance and risk management consulting
company based in Dallas. Our consultants’ experience in
the insurance industry allows us to provide highly qualified
expert witness and litigation support services. Our
expertise includes: property/casualty insurance, life/health
insurance, Lloyd’s, London Market Research, claims handling, bad faith, decision analysis, agency management
and practices, insurance laws and regulations, statistical
forecasting, insurance sales and marketing practices, insurance archaeology and policy interpretation and analysis.
SHARP & ASSOCIATES; INSURANCE CONSULTANTS & EXPERTS.
West coast office: 21520 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite G
—257, Yorba Linda, CA. 92887, (213) 407-9957, East
coast office: 325 East Paces Ferry Road, Suite 1603,
Atlanta, GA 30305, (213) 407-9957, e-mail: rsharp1959
@aol.com Web site: www.sharpandassociates.org.
Contact Robert Sharp. Good faith/bad faith. In regard
to all insurance related issues and insurance industry
standards. Mr. Sharp has 33 years of experience, and retired as president and CEO of a property-casualty insurance company. He also held the positions of senior vice
president claims and executive vice president. He is providing services to law firms, insurance companies, and
corporations as a consultant and expert. Mr. Sharp has
testified in state and federal court in insurance related
matters such as property/casualty claims, sales and underwriting issues, policy cancellations, coverage denials,
general liability, uninsured/underinsured claims, and bad
faith claims. CV upon request. For immediate background
information please see my Web site, as listed above.
BARRY ZALMA, ZALMA INSURANCE
CONSULTANTS
4441 Sepulveda Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90230, (310)
390-4455, fax (310) 391-5614, e-mail: zalma@zalma
.com. Web site: www.zalma.com or www.zic.bz. Contact Barry Zalma. Insurance bad faith, insurance claims
handling, insurance coverage, and insurance fraud consultant and expert witness. Author of Construction Defects: Litigation and Claims, Insurance Claims—A Comprehensive Guide and Mold: A Comprehensive Claims
Guide, Insurance, Cases and Materials on Coverage,
Claims, and Litigation. California Claims Regulations, and
the monthly Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
90071-2005, (213) 553-2500, fax (213) 553-2699,
.cornerstone.com. Contact George G. Strong, Jr.
Cornerstone Research provides attorneys with expert testimony and economic and financial analyses in all phases
90017, (213) 787-4100, fax (213) 891-1300, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.fulcruminquiry.com. Contact David Nolte. Our professionals are
experienced CPAs, MBAs, ASAs, CFAs, affiliated professors, and industry specialists. Our analysis and research
combined with unique presentation techniques have resulted in an unequaled record of successful court cases
and client recoveries. Our expertise encompasses damages analysis, lost profit studies, business and intangible
asset valuations, appraisals, fraud investigations, statistics, forensic economic analysis, royalty audits, strategic
and market assessments, computer forensics, electronic
discovery, and analysis of computerized data. Degrees/licenses: CPAs, CFAs, ASAs, PhDs and MBAs in accounting, finance, economics, and related subjects. See display ad on page 1.
GLENN M. GELMAN & ASSOCIATES,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND
BUSINESS CONSULTANTS
assistance, computation of damages, arbitration consulting, forensic accounting, investigative auditing, rebuttal testimony, fiduciary accountings, and trial exhibit preparation.
WOLF & HUNT
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/ACQUISITION INVESTIGATIONS
(213) 624-9600, fax (213) 624-6994, e-mail: lskyla
INVESTIGATIONS
• Expert testimony
• Damages calculation
• Forensic accounting
• Business valuation
• Database analysis
Thomas Neches
Certified Public Accountant
Accredited in Business Valuation
Certified Valuation Analyst
Thomas Neches & Company LLP
Certified Fraud Examiner
(213) 624-8150
609 South Grand Avenue
Suite 1106
Los Angeles, California 90017-3848
www.thomasneches.com
LEGAL MALPRACTICE
CA 91403, (818) 986-9890, fax (818) 986-1757, e-mail:
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]. Web sites: www
.LegalMalpracticeExperts.com; www.LegalEthicsExperts
.com. Contact Phillip Feldman. Certified SPECIALIST
professional liability-legal CA/ABA. Former judge pro
tem—25 years. FEE DISPUTE Arbitrator—31 years. Forty
years ETHICS, Bar prosecution/defense. Consulting EXPERT. Testifying EXPERT 28 years: standard of care,
causation, fiduciary duties, professional responsibility and
ethics, and fee disputes. Any underlying case-litigation,
transaction, family, administrative, state or federal. Former
accountant, degree BS, MBA. Former managing partner
plaintiff and defense firms. Also State Bar Defense Counsel and preventative law.
LAWRENCE H. JACOBSON, ESQ.
9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250, Beverly Hills, CA
90212, (310) 271-0747, fax (310) 271-0757, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.lawrencejacobson
.com. Expert witness: lawyer malpractice in business and
real estate transactions, standard of care for real estate
brokers and mortgage brokers, and real estate document
custom and usage. Practicing real estate and business
law in California since 1968. See display ad on
page 57.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES PEREYRASUAREZ
90071, (213) 623-5923, fax (213) 623-1890, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.cpslawfirm
.com. Contact Charles Pereyra-Suarez. Acted as an
expert witness for the plaintiffs in a legal malpractice case
that resulted in a $38 million jury verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs against a prominent international law firm. This
was the fifth largest jury verdict in California in 2005. See
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER ROLIN
5707 Corsa Avenue, Suite 106, Westlake Village, CA
91362, (818) 707-7065, fax (818) 735-9992, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.chrisrolin.com.
Contact Christopher Rolin. Christopher Rolin is a
highly effective trial attorney with over 41 years of trial activity in civil litigation. His area of emphasis is attorney malpractice, focusing on the applicable community standard
of care for practicing attorneys in the litigation and business areas. His trial experience has resulted in numerous
assignments as an expert witness on trial and standards
of care issues. He has been retained as an expert by both
plaintiffs and defendants in legal malpractice cases. He
has spoken before numerous professional groups concerning trial practice issues.
LITIGATION
90071, (213) 892-2500, fax (213) 892-2300, e-mail:
issues, preparation of analytical models, critique of op-
posing experts, and expert testimony in federal and state
@econone.com. Web site: www.econone
com. Contact Lisa Skylar. Econ One provides economic research, consulting and expert testimony in many
areas, including: antitrust, intellectual property and patent
infringement, contract disputes, damages analysis/calculations, employment issues, and unfair competition. We
offer in-house expertise in applied economic theory,
econometrics, statistics, and years of experience successfully dealing with the specific demands of the litigation process. Econ One experts have testified in state and
federal courts; administrative, legislative and regulatory
agencies, and in arbitrations and mediations. We understand the need for clear, accurate, persuasive answers to
complex problems. See display ad on page 65.
90067, (310) 551-5252, fax (310) 551-5414, e-mail:
billing.
LOSS OF PARENTAL SERVICES
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA CENTER
Forensic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Services.
2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA 94115,
(415) 292-7119, fax (415) 749-2802. Web site: www
.expertchildpsychiatry.com. Contact Gil Kliman, MD,
Medical Director. Child psychiatry, institutional negligence, psychological trauma, molestation, vehicular and
aviation accidents, wrongful death, loss of parental services, malpractice, and product liability involving childhood personal injury. Degrees/license: MD, FAACAP,
LFAPA, and DBFE. See display ad on page 72.
MARKETING/ADVERTISING/MEDIA
GRAYSON ASSOCIATES
30728 Paseo Elegancia, San Juan Capistrano, CA
92675, (949) 487-9970, fax (949) 487-9975, e-mail: bob
@graysonassociates.com. Web site: www.marketingexpertwitness.com. Contact Robert A. Grayson PhD.
Specialties: marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution, sales, damages, channels, trade dress, pricing, competition; research, total marketing mix, consulting to attorneys, depositions, and testimony.
LARRY STEVEN LONDRE/LONDRE MARKETING CONSULTANTS, LLC/ USC/ CSUN
11072 Cashmere Street, Second Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90049, (310) 889-0220, fax (310) 889-0221, e-mail:
.LondreMarketing.com. Contact Larry Steven Londre.
Expert in marketing, advertising, media, communication,
advertising agencies, clients, trademarks, and global marketing. Also senior lecturer at USC, CSUN, and Pepperdine Universities.
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
CTG FORENSICS, INC.
16 Technology Drive, Suite 109, Irvine, CA 92618, (949)
790-0010, fax (949) 790-0020, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.CTGforensics.com. Contact Dr. Malcolm Lewis, PE. Construction-related engineering, plumbing, mechanical (heating, ventilating, A/C)
and electrical (power, lighting), energy systems, residential
and nonresidential buildings, construction defects, construction claims, and mold.
MEDICAL
ALLERGY ASTHMA RESPIRATORY CARE
MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
KENNETH T. KIM, MD
2600 Redondo Avenue, Suite 400, Long Beach, CA
90806, (562) 997-7888, fax (562) 997-8884, e-mail: sueb
@allergy-asthma.info. Web site: www.allergy-asthma.info.
Contact Sue Bass. Specialties include latex allergy,
asthma, food allergy, drug allergy, anaphylaxis, sinusitis,
hives, sick building syndrome, mold, and environmental
disease. Experience, civil: retained or reviewed more than
70 latex products liability cases, retained for allergy and
internal medicine cases in the areas of occupational
asthma, mold exposure, civil litigation, sick building syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, smoke inhalation,
and toxic exposure.
AMFS MEDICAL EXPERTS NATIONWIDE
2000 Powell Street, Suite 520, Emeryville, CA 94608,
(800) 275-8903. Web site: www.AMFS.com. Medical experts for malpractice and personal injury cases. AMFS is
America’s premier medical expert witness and consulting
company. We are a trusted partner with the legal community and provide a superior method of retaining medical
experts. Since 1990, we have provided board-certified
experts in over 10,000 malpractice and personal injury
cases with a 92% win-rate compared to the industry average of 28%. • 8,500+ experts in 250+ specialties, •
Practicing Physicians with Legal Experience, • No cost attorney consultations, • Record Review & Testimony, • Independent Medical Examinations (IME) & Autopsies, • Essential Affidavits & Reporting. Free Attorney Consultations. Discuss your case at no charge with a physician
who will identify and clarify your case issues to ensure you
retain the appropriate specialists. Case Reviews for
Merit. Have your case reviewed for merit in round-table
fashion by a multidisciplinary panel of practicing, boardcertified physicians. Review & Select Expert C.V.s. Our
experience, resources and large proprietary database enable us to quickly identify and interview a large number of
potential medical experts on your behalf and provide you
with the CVs of those who are best suited to your case.
2906 Lafayette, Newport Beach, CA 92663,
(949) 723-2211, fax (949) 723-2212, e-mail: expert
TASAMED (A DIVISION OF THE TASA
GROUP, INC.)
Customized Expert Referrals in all Medical practice areas.
(800) 659-8464, fax (800) 850-8272. Contact Linda
Bartorillo. FIND THE MEDICAL EXPERT or EXPERT
WITNESS YOU NEED quickly with one call or click to
TASAmed. We refer top caliber, experienced practitioners—including hard-to-find-specialists—for case merit reviews, litigation support, testimony, etc. in over 900 +
medical fields. Save valuable search time. Every request
receives personal service from our skilled Referral Advisors who target referrals, forward resumes, and help
arrange your initial screening telephone interviews with experts. If you don’t ultimately designate or engage an expert we refer, there is NO CHARGE at all. Plaintiff or defense. Local, regional, and national referrals. Exceptional
personal service. Sample categories include anesthesiology, cardiology, dentistry, emergency care, forensic
pathology, hospital administration, neurology, nursing
homes, orthopedics, oncology, pediatrics, pharmacology,
psychiatry, radiology, sports medicine, surgery, and more.
Please see our insert in this issue and display ad on
this page.
MEDICAL/CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
HENRY FEE MD
14911 National Avenue, #6, Los Gatos, CA 95032,
(408) 358-8771, fax (408) 358-8621. Contact Henry
Fee, MD. Graduated Harvard Medical School. Residency
Johns Hopkins & UCLA. Expert witness in adult heart and
lung surgery for the defendant or the plaintiff. Twenty-five
years of experience in medical legal field. Full-time surgical
practice in private hospital.
TASAmed Has
Your Medical Expert.
SM
✒ Litigation support
✒ Expert witness
• Outstanding local and national Experts
in more than 900 healthcare categories –
even hard-to-find specialties
• Services include prompt, customized
searches, referrals, resumes, and your
initial interview calls with experts
• 5 decades of referral experience
MEDICAL/DERMATOLOGY
BIERMAN FORENSIC DERMATOLOGY
2080 Century Park East, #1008, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
(310) 553-3567, fax (310) 553-4538, e-mail: sbiermanmd
@aol.com. Web site: www.biermandermatology.com.
Contact Stanley Bierman, MD. Dr. Bierman is an expert witness in matters relating to diagnosis and treatment
of skin cancers including melanoma. He is an acknowledged expert in legal matters relating to sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Bierman is Honorary Associate professor of medicine and past president of Los Angeles Dermatologic Society.
800-659-8464
www.tasanet.com
213-625-0828 • [email protected]
✒ Forensic accountants
✒ Family law matters
✒ Business valuations
✒ Loss of earnings
✒ Damages
When you need more than just
numbers... you can count on us...
Contact Michael Krycler
PHONE (818) 995-1040
FAX (818) 995-4124
E-MAIL [email protected]
VISIT US @ www.KETW.COM
15303 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1040
SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403
MEDICAL/EMERGENCY MEDICINE
O
THIS. W
ED
LIKE
K
L
TA
LK
ET
E THIS. WE
K
I
L
D
K
L LIKE THIS. WE D O
IS.
E T HIS.WE DON'T T
E T HIS.WE DON'T A
.WE DON'
T
HIS
T
A
BERNARD T. MCNAMARA, MD
409 North Pacific Coast Highway, # 923, Redondo
Beach, CA 90277, (310) 480-4770, fax (310) 943-3274,
e-mail: [email protected]. Contact Bernard
T. McNamara, MD. Current practice, full time emergency medicine, and hospital infection control. Over 25
years of experience in the practice of emergency medi-
ALK LIKE TH
TT
IS
'
ON
DON'T TALK
L
I
K
WE
MEDICAL/INFECTIOUS DISEASE
N'
ON'T TAL
K
L
ED
IK
BRUCE WAPEN, MD
EMERGENCY MEDICINE EXPERT
969-G Edgewater Boulevard, Suite 807, Foster City, CA
94404-3760, (650) 577-8635, fax (650) 577-0191, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.DrWapen
.com. Contact Bruce Wapen, MD. Board-certified
emergency physician and experienced teacher/public
speaker offers consultation, chart review, and testimony
as an expert witness for defense or plaintiff involving litigation arising from the emergency department.
ALK LIKE TH
T
T
N' TALK LIKE TH IS.
T
W
ON'T TALK
ED
LIK
.W
BERNARD T. MCNAMARA, MD
409 North Pacific Coast Highway, # 923, Redondo
Beach, CA 90277, (310) 480-4770, fax (310) 943-3274,
e-mail: [email protected]. Contact Bernard
T. McNamara, MD. Current practice, full time emergency medicine, and hospital infection control. Over 25
years of experience in the practice of emergency medicine, infectious diseases, and HIV/AIDS. Experience in
medical malpractice for both plaintiff and defense. Board
certified, emergency medicine since 1987; board certified,
infectious diseases since 1984; board certified, internal
medicine since 1980. Degrees/licenses: MD; Fellow,
American College of Physicians; Fellow, American College
of Emergency Physicians; Fellow, American Academy of
Emergency Medicine; and member, Infectious Disease
Society of America; LACMA (Los Angeles County Medical
Association,); and CMA (California Medical Association);
CA Lic-G36838 since 1978, WA Lic-MD00041205 since
2002.
We prefer to get straight to the point. In fact, it’s our job. We make
complex economic issues easy to understand. At Econ One, our years
of hands-on experience applying the science of economics helps us
take the mystery out of the complicated issues our clients face.
www.econone.com
Antitrust • Intellectual Property • Damages Analysis • Employment Issues
cine, infectious diseases, and HIV/AIDS. Experience in
medical malpractice for both plaintiff and defense. Board
certified, emergency medicine since 1987; board certified,
infectious diseases since 1984; board certified, internal
medicine since 1980. Degrees/licenses: MD; Fellow,
American College of Physicians; Fellow, American College
of Emergency Physicians; Fellow, American Academy of
Emergency Medicine; and member, Infectious Disease
Society of America; LACMA (Los Angeles County Medical
Association,); and CMA (California Medical Association);
CA Lic-G36838 since 1978, WA Lic-MD00041205 since
2002.
MEDICAL/PLASTIC AND COSMETIC
RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
JOHN M. SHAMOUN, MD, FACS, INC.
360 San Miguel, Suite 406, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
(949) 759-3077, fax (949) 759-5458, e-mail: jmshamoun
@aol.com. Web site: www.ideallook.com. Contact
Yvonne. Specialties: only plastic surgeon in the United
States board certified by the 1) American Board of
Surgery, 2) American Board of Plastic Surgery, 3) American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,
and 4) American Board of Forensic Medicine. Extensive
experience in all aspects of cosmetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgery of the breast, nose, face, eye, and body.
Well-published author of several textbook chapters and
journal articles related to above topics. Extensive experience in medical malpractice case review, consultation,
written evaluation and testimony in depositions and trial
for plaintiff and defense. Articulate subspecialty consultant
with up-to-date knowledge and expertise of plastic
surgery literature and standards of care. Opinions supported by extensive subspecialty education, training, and
experience.
MEDICAL/UROLOGY
DUDLEY SETH DANOFF, MD, FACS
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8635 West 3rd Street, Suite
One West, Los Angeles, CA 90048, (310) 854-9898, fax
(310) 854-0267, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www
.towerurology.com. Contact Dudley Seth Danoff, MD,
FACS. Experience in urologic case review and testimony
for plaintiff and defense, court experience, and strategies.
Extensive expertise in prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers; kidney transplantation; pelvic trauma; sexual dysfunction; penile implants; incontinence; infections; and
stone disease. Publishing experience in scientific journals,
books, lectures, training seminars, and course directorships. Princeton University, Summa Cum Laude; Yale
Medical School; Columbia University urologic training;
Major, U.S. Air Force; Who’s Who in America; Academic
appointment. Detailed CV available.
MEDICAL/VASCULAR SURGERY
ROBERT WAGMEISTER, MD, FACS
2001 Santa Monica Boulevard, #690-W, Santa Monica,
CA 90404, (310) 828-5626, fax (310) 828-2826, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Robert Wagmeister, MD,
FACS. Vascular surgery: diseases, trauma, and surgery
of the circulation, both arterial and venous. Includes approach for lumbar spine surgery, carotid surgery,
aneurysms, bypass surgery, dialysis surgery, amputations, pulmonary embolus, and phlebitis. Special certification in vascular surgery. Member of Southern California
Vascular Surgery Society, Society for Vascular Surgery,
Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery and Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society. Extensive experience, numerous
cases each year, depositions, expert witness; court appearance as required. Birth date: May 16, 1949. MD,
Tufts Medical School, 1974.
MEDICAL DEVICES
Contact Richard P. Meyst. Fallbrook Engineering pro66 Los Angeles Lawyer November 2008
vides expert witness services in the areas of IP (patent infringement, invalidity, claim construction and trade dress),
personal injury, product liability, and product failure analysis. Our professionals have represented both plaintiff and
defendant. We have done analysis, prepared declarations, been deposed and testified in court. We have years
of design and development experience making us effective expert witnesses in all matters involving medical devices. Visit our website at www.fallbrook-eng.com.
MEDICAL LEGAL
GRAHAM A. PURCELL, MD, INC.
Assistant Clinical Professor Orthopaedic Surgery, UCLA,
3600 Wrightwood Drive, Studio City, CA 91604,
(818) 985-3051, fax (818) 985-3049, e-mail: expert
@gpurcellmd.com. Web site: gpurcellmd.com. Contact
Graham A. Purcell, MD. Dr. Purcell is a board certified
orthopedic surgeon, sub-specialty in spinal disorders affecting adults and children. Examples of spinal disorders
treated by Dr. Purcell include disc diseases, stenosis, infections, tumors, injuries, and deformities including scoliosis. He possesses 29 years of orthopedic and 21 years of
med-legal experience, including defense, plaintiff, insurance carriers, CA Attorney General’s office and Public Defender’s office. Expert testimony pertains to med-mal,
personal injury, and workers’ compensation cases. As a
qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Purcell has extensive experience in performing QMEs, AMEs, IMEs, WC evals.
ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC.
114 West Colorado Boulevard, Monrovia, CA 91016,
(626) 303-6333, fax (626) 303-8080, e-mail: [email protected].
Contact Jan Roughan at ext. 16. Specialties: Roughan
and Associates at LINC is a case management and medical/legal consulting firm. Services/products offered include: 1) Expert Testimony, 2) Life Care Plan (LCP) Construction/LCP Critique, 3) Medical Record Organization/
Summarization/Analysis, 4) Medical Bill Auditing, 5) Expert
Witness Identification, 6) IME Attendance, 7) Video Services (e.g., Day In Life, Settlement Brief, IME Evaluation,
NDT/PT Evaluation, etc.), 8) Questions for:
Deposition/Cross Examination; 9) Medical/Psychiatric
Case Management. See display ad on page 51.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
J. CARLOS MAGGI, MD
Memorial/Miller Children’s Hospital. 2801 Atlantic Avenue,
Long Beach, CA 90806, (562) 933-8743, fax (562) 9338764, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact Evelyn Rosas. Pediatric pulmonary, pediatric critical care,
pediatric hospital care, pediatric emergencies and resuscitation, pediatric trauma and burns, and intoxications.
PEDIATRIC CONSULTANTS, INC.
11232 Kensington Road, Rossmoor, CA 90720, (562)
964-9644, fax (562) 933-8764, e-mail: drmaggic@aol
.com. Contact J. Carlos Maggi, MD. Evaluation of
cases for medical malpractice in pediatric patient care.
(818) 985-3051, fax (818) 985-3049, e-mail: expert
orthopedic surgeon, sub-specialty in spinal disorders
affecting adults and children. Examples of spinal disorders
MEDICARE
90067, (310) 551-5252, fax (310) 551-5414, e-mail:
billing.
METALLURGICAL AND CORROSION
ENGINEER
Anaheim, CA 92801-2636, (714) 527-7100, fax (714)
METALLURGY
Anaheim, CA 92801-2636, (714) 527-7100, fax (714)
SEAL LABORATORIES
250 North Nash Street, El Segundo, CA 90245,
(310) 322-2011, fax (310) 322-2243. E-mail: akumar
@seallabs.com. Web site: www.seallabs.com. Contact
Arun Kumar, PhD, president. Materials failure analysis,
product liability, and patent infringement support. Case
evaluation and strategy, analytical support, and expert
witness testimony. Metals, composites, plastics, and
glass. Airplanes, autos, helicopters, motorcycles, consumer products, medical devices, prostheses and implants, and electrical components. Analysis of failure due
to fatigue, overload, corrosion, wear, or
manufacturing/material defect.
METEOROLOGY
AIR, WEATHER, & SEA CONDITIONS, INC.
P.O. Box 512, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, (818) 6458632, fax (310) 454-7569, e-mail: [email protected].
Web site: www.weatherman.org. Contact Jay Rosenthal, AMS, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
(CCM). Experienced and authoritative expert testimony,
reports and analyses of wind, rain, flooding, waves; spe-
cialist in auto/boat/ship/aircraft accident reconstruction,
property damage, slip and falls, construction, mold issues, homeland security applications, air pollution, transport, and risk identification. Movie industry applications,
cinematography, and visual effects. Determining unusualness, normalcy, and foreseeability. Official data, site visits,
clear and convincing testimony. See display ad on
page 68.
NURSING/SURGERY/MEDSURG
MED-LINK CONSULTATION
3362 Budleigh Drive, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745, (626)
333-5110, fax (626) 968-0064, e-mail: dorothypollock
@roadrunner.com. Contact Dorothy Pollock, LNCC.
Expert witness case review and analysis for plaintiff and
defense; DME/IME accompaniment; deposition and
courtroom experience. Forty years RN in surgery; preand postoperative care. Clinically active and teaching in
an RN program.
OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
HANK STREITFELD, MD
3000 Colby Street, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 644-0110,
Contact Cindy Sweet. Over 30 years actively practicing
obstetrics and gynecology; extensive hospital peer review
experience; medical record review, consultation, and testimony; defense and plaintiff work.
ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON
MARC J. FRIEDMAN, MD
6815 Noble Avenue, Van Nuys, CA 91405, (818) 9016600, fax (818) 901-6685, e-mail: [email protected].
Web site: www.scoi.com. Contact Holly Robinson, Ext
2810. Orthopedic shoulder and knee, consulting, and expert witness testimony. IME, AME, QME and workers’
compensation evaluations. See display ad on page 67.
(818) 985-3051, fax (818) 985-3049, e-mail: expert
RICHARD C. ROSENBERG, MD
18370 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 614, Tarzana, CA
91356, (818) 996-6800, fax (818) 996-2929, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.drrosenberg.com. Orthopedic surgery, sports medicine, and physical therapy.
Experienced in IME, QME, agreed medical exams,
med/legal reports, and expert witness testimony. Personal injury and workers’ compensation. Additional office
in Oxnard, California.
WILLIAM B. STETSON, MD
201 South Buena Vista Street, Suite 240, Burbank,
CA 91505, (818) 848-3030, fax (818) 848-2228,
.sportsmedicinedr.com. Contact W. Stetson, MD. Dr.
William B. Stetson is a board certified orthopedic surgeon
who is fellowship trained in sports medicine and
arthroscopy. He is an Associate Clinical Professor of orthopedic surgery at the USC School of Medicine. He specializes in the reconstructive treatment of complex shoulder, knee, elbow and ankle injuries.
BOARD CERTIFIED ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON
MARC J. FRIEDMAN, M.D.
6815 Noble Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91405
Tel. 818.901.6600 ext. 2810 • Fax: 818.901.6685 • Email: [email protected]
Web Site: www.scoi.com
Education: Princeton University and Cornell Medical School
Certificate: Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon
Memberships: Fellowship Sports Medicine
Fellow American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
Fellow in the Arthroscopy Association of North America
Fellow in the International Arthroscopy Association
Fellow in the International Knee Society
Fellow in the American Orthopedic Society of Sports Medicine
ACL Study Group
Certified QME, IME, AME
Specialties: Sports Medicine, Arthroscopic and Reconstructive Surgery of
the Knee and Shoulder, and Knee Replacement
Appointments: Assistant Clinical Professor, Division of Orthopedics,
UCLA School of Medicine, Chairman, Education Committee
Arthroscopy Association of North America 1997-1999
World Cup Soccer Team Physician, 1985
Physician Specialist XXIII Olympiad 1984
Orthopedic Consultant–New York Knicks and Jets 1978-1985
Publications: 60 Publications including handbook for Orthopedic Surgeons
on Prosthetic Ligament Reconstruction of the Knee
Presentations: Lectures extensively with over 375 presentations worldwide
PATENT
Air Weather & Sea
Conditions, Inc.
Clear, plain-language and convincing
expert testimony, reports and analyses
to reconstruct weather, storm, and
atmospheric conditions at location and
time of interest.
Wind and rain assessments, and indications of their normalcy, unusualness and
foreseeability.
Contact Richard P. Meyst. Fallbrook Engineering provides expert witness services in the areas of IP (patent infringement, invalidity, claim construction and trade dress),
personal injury, product liability, and product failure analysis. Our professionals have represented plaintiffs and defendants. We have done analysis, prepared declarations,
been deposed and testified in court. We have years of
design and development experience making us effective
expert witnesses in all matters involving medical devices.
Visit our web site at www.fallbrook-eng.com.
Authoritative, certified data acquisition,
preparation of exhibit materials, site
visits and evaluations of reports for legal
and insurance matters including building
projects, mold, and accidents.
Excellent client references provided on
request.
PERSONAL INJURY
CERTIFIED CONSULTING METEOROLOGIST
Phone 818.645.8632 or 310.454.7549
Fax 310.454.7569
E-mail [email protected]
www.weatherman.org
P. O. Box 512, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
FORENSIC
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
& ENGINEERING, INC.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Forensic Analysis &
Investigation of:
• Construction
Defects
• Structural, Civil,
Environmental, Industrial Engineering
& Issues for All Types of Structures
and Buildings
• Regulatory Compliances & Building
Codes
This Corporation can also provide
expert witness in the areas of
Malpractice Litigation or Real Estate
transactions.
MASSIE MUNROE, M.S., P.E.
PRESIDENT & CEO • EXPERT WITNESS
Tel: 213-632-1310
Fax: 213-632-5299
E-mail: [email protected]
www.ConstructionDefect.us
PLASTIC AND COSMETIC RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY
JEFFREY L. ROSENBERG, MD
90017, (213) 977-0257, fax (213) 977-0501. Contact
Meghan. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, burn specialist. Diplomate, American Board of Plastic Surgery.
Member, American Burn Association and American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
PEDIATRIC EXPERT WITNESS
MICHAEL WEINRAUB, MD
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3600, Los Angeles, CA
90071, (213) 236-3662, fax (213) 236-3663, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Michael Weinraub,
MD. Consultation, litigation support, and trial testimony
for pediatric cases; malpractice, product liability, personal
injury, child abuse, developmental disabilities, ADHD,
lead exposure, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. See
Jay Rosenthal CCM
cluding trademark, patent, and copyright infringement,
and trade secrets, malpractice, marital dissolution, personal injury, product liability, real estate, tax planning and
preparation, IRS audit defense, tracing, unfair advertising,
unfair competition, valuation of businesses, and wrongful
termination. See display ad on page 47.
(415) 292-7119, fax (415) 749-2802. Web site: www
.expertchildpsychiatry.com. Contact Gil Kliman, MD,
aviation accidents, wrongful death, loss of parental services, malpractice, and product liability involving childhood personal injury. Degrees/license: MD, FAACAP,
(818) 985-3051, fax (818) 985-3049, e-mail: expert
orthopedic surgeon, sub-specialty in spinal disorders
affecting adults and children. Examples of spinal disorders treated by Dr. Purcell include disc diseases, stenosis, infections, tumors, injuries, and deformities including
scoliosis. He possesses 29 years of orthopedic and 21
years of med-legal experience, including defense, plaintiff, insurance carriers, CA Attorney General’s office and
Public Defender’s office. Expert testimony pertains to
med-mal, personal injury, and workers’ compensation
cases. As a qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Purcell has
extensive experience in performing QMEs, AMEs, IMEs,
WC evals. See display ad on page 71.
WOLF & HUNT
91423, (818) 981-4226, fax (818) 981-4278, 363 San
Miguel Drive, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
(949) 219-9816, fax (949) 219-9095, 831 State Street,
Suite 291, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 648-4088,
fax (805) 963-4088, e-mail: [email protected]. Contact Barbara Luna or Bill Wolf. Expert witness testimony for complex litigation involving damage analyses of
lost profits, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalties, lost
earnings, lost value of business, forensic accounting,
fraud investigation, investigative analysis of liability, marital
dissolution, and tax planning and preparation. Excellent
communicators with extensive testimony experience.
Prior Big Four accountants. Specialties include accounting, breach of contract, business interruption, business
dissolution, construction defects, delays, and cost overruns, fraud, insurance bad faith, intellectual property in-
PLUMBING
CTG FORENSICS, INC.
16 Technology Drive, Suite 109, Irvine, CA 92618,
(949) 790-0010, fax (949) 790-0020, e-mail: mlewis
@CTGforensics.com. Web site: www.CTGforensics.com.
Contact Dr. Malcolm Lewis, PE. Construction-related
engineering, plumbing, mechanical (heating, ventilating,
A/C) and electrical (power, lighting), energy systems, residential and nonresidential buildings, construction defects,
construction claims, and mold.
PLUMBING INSPECTION PIPE EVALUATION
SERVICES (PIPES)
43141 Business Center Parkway, Suite 201, Lancaster,
CA 93535, (661) 949-8811, fax (661) 940-7318.
Contact Arnold A. Rodio. Specialties include evaluation
of plumbing systems and installation in housing, apartment, condominium, and commercial. Expert on uniform
plumbing codes and installation standards. Twenty-eight
years’ experience, 8,000+ residential units and assorted
commercial projects. Active plumbing contractor. Call for
CV.
POLICE PRACTICES
MARTINELLI & ASSOCIATES: JUSTICE &
FORENSIC CONSULTANTS, INC.
Criminalist, federal/state court certified, police practices
expert, criminal and civil investigator. 42143 Avenida Alvarado, Suite B2, Temecula, CA 92590, (951) 719-1450,
fax (334) 460-6175, e-mail: [email protected]. Web
site: www.jurispro.com/Ronmartinelli. Contact Ron
Martinelli, PhD. Law enforcement/police practices,
adult/juvenile corrections, use of force/excessive force (all
levels), in-custody death and officer-involved shootings,
pepper spray, taser, criminal/civil investigations,
arrests/detentions, search and seizure, training, liability
and negligence, gang violence, and self-defense law.
Twenty-eight years police field and investigation experience, former police Academy Director. Nationally recognized and published authority with significant trial experience. Federal/state certified.
POLICE PROCEDURES/PRACTICES EXPERT
TT WILLIAMS JR, INVESTIGATIONS INC.
90071, (213) 489-6831, fax (213) 426-2151, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.ttwilliamspi.com. Contact Timothy T Williams Jr. CEO. Police procedure,
use of force and domestic violence expert in both state
and federal courts. Retired LAPD Senior Detective Supervisor, from the elite Robbery-Homicide Division. Twentynine plus years of active law enforcement experience,
with 26 years conducting and supervising investigations
including homicide, robbery, domestic violence, child
abuse, crimes against person, sexual assault, rape, burglary, auto theft, juvenile, and narcotics investigations.
Degree/Licenses: P.O.S.T. Supervisory Leadership Institute; West Point Leadership Program; Basic, Intermediate, Advanced and Supervisor P.O.S.T. Certificates; PI
23399; PPO 14771.
POLYGRAPH
JACK TRIMARCO & ASSOCIATES POLYGRAPH INC.
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor, Beverly Hills, CA
90212, (310) 247-2637, e-mail: [email protected]. Web
site: www.jacktrimarco.com. Contact Jack Trimarco.
Former manager of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
polygraph program in Los Angeles. Former Inspector
General Polygraph Program—Department of Energy. Nationally known and respected Polygraph Expert. I have
the credentials you would want when you have a client
polygraphed, a case reviewed, or a motion made regarding polygraph. My unique background allows me to bring
the highest levels of service and expertise to any polygraph situation. Current member of the board of directors
and chairman of the Ethics Committee, California Association of Polygraph Examiners (CAPE). Hundreds of appearances on national T.V. to include Dr. Phil, Oprah,
Greta, Nancy Grace, O’Reilly Factor and Hannity &
Colmes. Degrees/licenses: BS Psychology; Certified APA,
AAPP, CAPE, AAFE. See display ad on this page.
JACK TRIMARCO & ASSOCIATES
POLYGRAPH/INVESTIGATIONS, INC.
9454 Wilshire Blvd.
Sixth Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
TEL
PROBATE LAW
DARLING, HALL & RAE
600 John Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, (310)
372-9193, fax (310) 376-5413, e-mail: sandyraeatbeach
@roadrunner.com. Contact Matthew S. Rae Jr. Attorney specialist in estate planning, trust, and probate law.
Consultant and expert witness, special and associate
counsel, guardian ad litem, referee, special administrator,
and independent trustee.
HONORABLE ANITA RAE SHAPIRO
Superior Court Commissioner (Retired), P.O. Box 1508,
Brea, CA 92822-1508, e-mail: privatejudge@adr-shapiro
.com. Web site: http://adr-shapiro.com. Retired Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner (15 years) available to
serve as a probate expert witness in cases involving wills
and trust issues. Presided in Long Beach Probate Department five years. See display ad on page 42.
PROCESS SERVER
32158 Camino Capistrano, # A-415, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675, (800) 248-7721, fax (949) 2480208, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www
PRODUCT LIABILITY
impact. Industrial and construction accidents: OSHA issues. Automotive, industrial, consumer products: brakes,
seat belts, forklifts, machinery, tools, protective equipment, lawn mowers, heaters, chairs, fixtures, ladders,
scaffolds, fasteners. Premises liability: code analysis, stairways, ramps, doors, gates, windows, guardrails, pools,
and lighting. Slip-and-fall. Trip-and-fall. Biomechanics.
Safety. Human factors. See display ad on page 46.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
LYNDEHURST, LTD
FAX
Jack Trimarco - President
Former Polygraph Unit Chief
Los Angeles F.B.I. (1990-1998)
310.247.2637
805.984.7042
email: [email protected]
www.jacktrimarco.com
CA. P.I. # 20970
Member Society of Former Special Agents
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Former Polygraph Inspection Team Leader
Office of Counter Intelligence
U.S. Department of Energy
THE BEST LEGAL MINDS
IN THE COUNTRY
TALK TO US
• Metallurgical Failures
• Corrosion & Welding Failures
• Glass & Ceramic Failures
• Chairs / Ladders / Tires
• Automobile/Aerospace/
Accidents
Contact:
• Bio-Medical/Orthopedic Implants
• Plumbing/Piping/ABS Failures
• Complete In-House Laboratory
Testing & Analysis Facilities
• Expert Witnesses/Jury Verdicts
• Licensed Professional Engineers
Dr. Naresh Kar, Fellow ASM, Fellow ACFE
Dr. Ramesh Kar, Fellow ASM, Fellow ACFE
ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC.
Testing & Research Labs
2528 W. Woodland Drive
Anaheim, CA 92801
■ TEL: (714)527-7100
■ FAX: (714)527-7169
■ www.karslab.com
■ email: [email protected]
PSYCHIATRY
MARIA T. LYMBERIS, MD, INC.
1500 Montana Avenue, Suite 204, Santa Monica, CA
90403, (310) 451-3152, fax (310) 454-1039, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.lymberis.com.
Contact Maria T. Lymberis, MD. Clinical Professor of
Psychiatry, UCLA, Board Certified in adult and child-adolescent psychiatry, expert consultant of Medical Board of
California, expert in psychiatric evaluations for: fitness for
duty, competency, sexual harassment, and posttraumatic
stress, divorce.
PSYCHIATRY/PSYCHOLOGY
NINA T. RODD, PHD, QME, DABPS
Los Angeles office: 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200,
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274, Newport Beach office:
620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100, Newport
Beach, CA 92660, (310) 378-7172, fax (310) 5419308, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www
.psych-expert.com. Contact Nina T. Rodd, PhD.
Comprehensive psychological/psychodiagnostic testing and evaluation, medical and records review, expert
witness testimony, and consulting.
2906 Lafayette, Newport Beach, CA 92663,
(949) 723-2211, fax (949) 723-2212, e-mail: expert
WILLIAMS PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, (888) 225-9957, fax (888) 225-9957, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.drmwilliams.com.
Contact Martin Williams, PhD. Services available:
IME’s for emotional damage claims; standard of care testimony in psychotherapy malpractice; immigration evaluations, law enforcement assessments; competency to
stand trial; NGRI; and sentence mitigation. Psychological
assessment using objective measures (MMPI-2, MCMIIII). Assessment of borderline and other personality disorders and PTSD. University of California Psychologist, Fellow of the American Psychological Association. Numerous peer reviewed publications. Offices in Los Angeles,
Newport Beach, and San Diego.
PSYCHIATRY/PSYCHOLOGY—FORENSIC
CHILD & ADOLESCENT
(415) 292-7119, fax (415) 749-2802. Web site: www.
expertchildpsychiatry.com. Contact Gil Kliman, MD,
aviation accidents, wrongful death, loss of parental services, malpractice, and product liability involving child-
hood personal injury. Degrees/license: MD, FAACAP,
PUBLISHING
BAY SHERMAN & CRAIG, LLP
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 845, Los Angeles,
CA 90064, (310) 477-1400, fax (310) 479-0720, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.baysherman
.com. Contact Peter Craig or Hal Jaffe. Many legal
disputes involve operational, financial, accounting, and income tax considerations. Bay Sherman & Craig LLP,
work together with counsel to resolve these conflicts. We
specialize in publishing intellectual property. In addition to
expert witness testimony, we provide the following: services prior to trial, financial, accounting and income tax issues defined, record analysis, economic fact-finding and
analysis, deposition preparation assistance, and settlement negotiations.
QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS
BLANCO & ASSOCIATES, INC.— FORENSIC
DOCUMENT EXAMINATIONS
655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA
91203, (818) 545-1155, fax (818) 545-1199, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.jimblanco.com.
Contact Jim Blanco. Former full time federal and state
government forensic document examiner (handwriting expert) with the US Treasury Federal Bureau of ATF and
California State Department of Justice. Court-qualified
and certified ABFDE (11/92-05/08). Signature, handwriting, and hand printing examinations, writer identification,
writer elimination, forgery and counterfeits, computer
printed or typewritten documents, medical chart evaluation (in medical malpractice cases), probate, wills, trusts,
real estate documents, deeds, and contracts.
SANDRA L. HOMEWOOD, FORENSIC
DOCUMENT EXAMINER
92078, (760) 931-2529, fax (760) 510-8412, e-mail:
profile civil and criminal cases with fully equipped document laboratory. Specializing in handwriting and handprinting identification, handwriting of the elderly in financial
REAL ESTATE
18881 Von Karman, Suite 1175, Irvine, CA 92612, (949)
263-8700, fax (949) 263-0770, e-mail: experts
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION GROUP,
EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES
4441 Cahuenga Boulevard, Suite D, Toluca Lake, CA
91602, (818) 790-1851, fax (818) 790-7671, e-mail: dave
@mediationla.com. Web site: www.mediationla.com.
Contact David W. Dresnick, president. All real estate
matters, international trade disputes, accounting and financial statement disputes, corporate and small business, and disputes between large corporations and small
companies, and contract disputes of all kinds. All real estate, including: evaluations, contracts, zoning, development, construction, secondary marketing, borrowers/
lenders, residential escrows, residential, commercial,
apartment, lending, and contracts. See display ad on
page 4.
CASTLELYONS CORP.
315 South Coast Highway 101, Suite U-3, Encinitas, CA
92024, (619) 787-5988, fax (760) 454-1696, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.castlelyons
.net. Contact Michael K. Ryan. Thirty-seven years of
experience in the residential development industry. Substantial entitlement, land development and homebuilding
resume. MBA from USC, contractor’s and broker’s licenses. Areas of expertise include; joint venture and partnership disputes, due diligence evaluation, entitlement
issue, homebuilder and broker disputes, standard of care
issues, to name a few. Please refer to website for more
information, www.castlelyons.net or contact Michael K.
Ryan, President, at (619) 787-5988.
LAWRENCE H. JACOBSON, ESQ.
9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250, Beverly Hills, CA
90212, (310) 271-0747, fax (310) 271-0757, e-mail: law
[email protected]. Web site: www.lawrencejacobson
.com. Expert witness: lawyer malpractice in business and
real estate transactions, standard of care for real estate
brokers and mortgage brokers, and real estate document
custom and usage. Practicing real estate and business
law in California since 1968. See display ad on
page 57.
JACK KARP/NATIONAL PROPERTIES GROUP
31115 Ganado Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275,
(310) 377-6349, fax (310) 868-2880, e-mail: jlkarp@cox
.net. Industrial and commercial broker’s care and duties,
professional obligations to clients. Mediation and arbitration between brokers and clients regarding disputes, ethical questions, and fee division. AAA neutral. Real estate
leases and purchase contracts and their interpretations.
Author AIR Net and Gross Leases and AIR Standard Offer
and Agreement and Escrow Instruction for Purchase of
Real Estate. See display ad on page 57.
LYNDEHURST, LTD
MAURICE ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES LLC
880 Apollo Street, Suite 125, El Segundo, CA 90245,
(310) 640-9656, fax (310) 640-9276, e-mail: maurice
@mauricerobinson.com. Web site: www.mauricerobinson
.com.Contact R. Maurice Robinson, president. Hotel
and real estate industry business issues, including market,
economic and financial feasibility, valuation, and disputes
between owner-operator, borrower-lender, and franchisor-franchisee. Fluent in management contracts, license agreements, ground and building leases, partner-
ship and JV agreement, concession contracts, development agreements, and loan docs. Can estimate damages and appraise property values under multiple scenarios. Expert witness testimony, litigation strategy, consultation and support, damage calculations, lost profits
analysis, real estate appraisals, deal structuring, workouts, new development, strategic planning, market demand assessment, acquisition due diligence, and economic, financial, and investment analysis. 30 years of experience.
THE REYNOLDS GROUP
P.O. Box 1996, Tustin, CA 92781-1996, (714) 730-5397,
fax (714) 730-6476, e-mail: edreynolds@reynolds-group
.com. Web site: www.reynolds-group.com. Contact Ed
Reynolds. Principal of the Reynolds Group, an environmental consulting, contracting, and consulting firm. Experienced in matters related to environmental contamination, assessment and remediation, reasonable value of
construction, and related financial matters. Degrees from
USC, BS, Civil Eng., 1981; University of Houston, MS,
Civil Eng., 1984; and Harvard, MBA, 1986. California registered civil engineer, licensed contractor. Adjunct faculty
member at the USC School of Engineering and member
of its Board of Councilors.
TEMMY WALKER, INC.
5026 Veloz Avenue, Tarzana, CA 91356, (818) 7603355, fax (818) 999-0826, e-mail: [email protected].
Contact Temmy Walker. Specializes in expert witness
testimony and litigation consultant in matters regarding
residential real estate, with emphasis on the customs and
practice, standards of care, disclosure requirements,
agency relationships, and broker supervision. Complete
assistance. Extensive transaction and court experience.
Director California Association of Realtors, master faculty
instructor for continuing education C.A.R. Excellent credentials and references.
TOM BATES EXPERT WITNESS
29575 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite A, Malibu, CA
90265, (310) 739-4886, fax (310) 456-1599, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Tom Bates. Reports,
evaluations conclusions on real estate. Covering the following: practice, contracts, sales agreements, state required D Disclosures. Single family residences, land development, land use vested rights easements, ingress,
egress, and encroachments. Condemnation, governmental zoning, bureaucratic abuses and takings. Appraisals
land value property value-development-process, permits,
real estate development and usage in the California
Coastal Zone. See display ad on this page.
ALAN D. WALLACE, ESQ.
91423, (818) 501-0133, fax (818) 905-6091, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact Alan D. Wallace, Esq.
Expert witness and litigation consulting for general real
estate matters, including law, custom and practice,
agency, disclosure, broker malpractice, standards of care
for brokers, buyers and sellers. Broker and attorney. Involved as broker in more that 7,500 real estate transactions. Department of Real Estate master instructor and
author, former CAR hotline attorney, university law professor in real estate. Successfully testified in dozens of
cases. See display ad on page 73
— EXPERT WITNESS —
• Reports, evaluations conclusions on Real Estate
Transactions.
• Appraisals Land value property value-Development-process, permits.
• Condemnation, governmental zoning,
bureaucratic abuses and takings.
• Real Estate Development and usage in the
California Coastal Zone.
COVERING THE FOLLOWING: Practice, contracts, sales
agreements, state required D disclosures. Single Family
Residences, Land Development, Land Use Vested Rights
Easements, Ingress, Egress, Encroachments.
BATES EXPERT WITNESS
TEL:
– Professional Excellence –
310.739.4886 • FAX: 310.456.1599
EMAIL:
[email protected]
Does LACBA have
your current
e-mail address?
The Los Angeles County Bar
Association is your resource
for information delivered via e-mail
on a number of subjects that
impact your practice.
Update your records online at
www.lacba.org/myaccount or
call Member Services at 213.896.6560.
29575 Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste A, Malibu, CA 90265
EXPERT WITNESS — Claims Consultant
EXPERIENCE
INTEGRITY
OVER 45 YEARS EXPERIENCE as a claims adjuster, licensed in three states and
qualified in state and federal courts. Expert in good faith/bad faith,
standards and practices and standard in the industry. Specialties in
property/casualty construction defect, fire/water, uninsured/underinsured
motorist, warehouse and cargo claims. Failure to defend and/or indemnify.
Litigation support, case review and evaluation claim consultation, coverage
review and valuations. Appraisal, Arbitration and Claims Rep. at MSC & MMC.
HONESTY
Contact Gene Evans at E. L. Evans Associates
Phone (310) 559-4005 / Fax (310) 390-9669 / E-mail [email protected]
3 3 1 0 A I R P O R T AVENUE, S U I T E 2 , S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 4 0 5
Twenty-one years plaintiff & defense experience
’
’
, CA Attorney
General’s Office
WARONZOF ASSOCIATES, INC.
2250 East Imperial Highway, Suite 120, El Segundo, CA
90245, (310) 322-7744, fax (310) 322-7755. Web site:
www.waronzof.com. Contact Timothy R. Lowe, MAI,
CRE. Waronzof Associates provides real estate and land
use litigation support services including economic damages, lost profits, financial feasibility, highest and best
use, property value, enterprise value, partnership interest
and closely-held share value, fair compensation, lender liability and reorganization plan feasibility. Professional staff
of four with advanced degrees and training in real estate,
finance, urban planning and accounting. See display ad
on page 61.
Forensic Experts in
Child and Adolescent
Psychological Injury
The Psychological Trauma Center provides case consultation for defense or plaintiff attorneys, evaluations
and testimony regarding allegedly traumatized children, adolescents and families.
Settlements and awards to child plaintiffs for whom our experts provided evaluations or testimony have
totaled over $2,000,000,000. We have also helped many defendants obtain defense verdicts or reasonable
settlements in civil actions involving allegations of psychological trauma.
Staff and associates
include Board certified
psychiatrists, licensed
psychologists, social
workers, MFTÕ s and
assistants. Expertise
includes emotional
damages resulting from:
A dedicated professional team in a sophisticated computer environment gives skillful and
economical management to your case- even on short notice. Complex/multi-document cases
readily handled. Institutional and/or multi-victim cases conveniently evaluated regardless of
location. Opinions formed throughout the nation by multi-disciplinary teams.
■
Institutional/
corporate negligence
■
Child molestation
or abuse
■
Human services
failure
■
Personal injury
■
Wrongful death of
parent
■
Foster care
■
Brain damage
The Center is directed by Gilbert Kliman, MD, a Harvard Medical School
Graduate, board certified child psychiatrist and Distinguished Life Fellow of
the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Kliman spends more than half of
his time in practice and research and less than half in litigation.
International literary prize winner and author of over 50 articles and books,
recipient of over 50 grants, he has spent over 35 years founding public health
organizations to help children. Diplomate of the American College of
Forensic Examiners and four psychiatric specialty boards, Dr. Kliman has
served as psychiatric expert in some of the nation’s most important
institutional neglect and child psychological trauma cases. Known for appearances on 20/20 and
The Today Show, listed in B
Ò e st Doctors in America”, he can provide attorney references from over
100 trials and 275 depositions. He has been accepted as psychiatric expert by federal and state
courts in Alaska, California, Florida, Mississippi, New York, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oregon,
Texas and Washington. Much of his testimony is for defense of municipalities, schools,
corporations, and individuals, in which attorneys references describe remarkable effectiveness. He
is one of the nation’s most highly credentialed forensic child psychiatrists and has a team of
distinguished associates.
■
Civil rights
violations
SOME OF OUR CASES INCLUDE:
■
Aircraft accidents
■
Loss of parental
services
■
Catastrophes
■
Product liability
A DIVISION OF PREVENTIVE PSYCHIATRY ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
■
Medical malpractice
■
Vehicular accidents
■
Fire/explosion
Smith v OK Boys Ranch • Does v Rudy Kos and Archdiocese of Dallas • Franklin v Anchorage School District
Heartland Academy v State of MO • Does v Roman Catholic Church and LA Archdiocese • Ramos v Salvation
Army • Does v Jubilee Christian Church • Does v S. Dakota School for Deaf
2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA 94115
Phone (415) 292-7119 / Fax (415) 749-2802
Visit our website for more information: www.expertchildpsychiatry.com
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CURTIS-ROSENTHAL, INC.
5959 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1010, Los
Angeles, CA 90045, (310) 215-0482, fax (310) 215-3089,
.curtisrosenthal.com. Contact David Rosenthal, MAI.
Appraisal of commercial and residential real estate for estate planning, eminent domain, bankruptcy, divorce, and
general litigation. Accepted in local, state, and federal
courts.
RECEIVER
SALTZBURG, RAY & BERGMAN, LLP
90025, (310) 481-6700, fax (310) 481-6707, e-mail: DLR
@srblaw.com. Web site: www.srblaw.com. Contact
David L. Ray, Esq. Specializes in handling complex receivership matters, such as partnership and corporate
dissolutions, including law firm dissolutions, and government enforcement receivership actions, including actions
brought by the California Department of Corporations,
Department of Real Estate, Commodities Future Trading
Commission, and Federal Trade Commission. Nationally
recognized in both the lender and litigation communities
as qualified to assist in complicated and commercially sophisticated liquidations, reorganizations, and ongoing
business operations. See display ad on page 51.
ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING
SHEPHERD CONSULTING SERVICES
P.O. Box 10010, Torrance, CA 90505, (310) 378-0791,
Contact John Shepherd, RRC, RRO. Roofing, waterproofing, sheet metal and building envelope consulting
services for construction defect litigation, personal injury
and water damage loss (standard of care and building
code issues), and property loss claims (wind, fire, earthquake and hail). Support services includes: visual inspections, invasive testing, leak investigation, water testing, report development, documentation, document review, research, mediation and trial expert witness testimony, and
cost estimating.
Expert Witness
—Real Estate Matters—
SPECIALIST IN:
• Broker duties; Standard of Care
• Disclosure Issues – Buyer/Seller
• Agency Obligations
• Real Estate Malpractice
• Mortgage Brokerage Law
• Residential & Commercial Transactions
CREDENTIALS:
Supervising Broker
Responsible for overseeing more than
7,500 RE transactions in major
California-based real estate companies.
General Counsel
Legal adviser for two of nation’s largest
real estate companies.
Hotline Attorney
Supervising Senior Counsel at
California Association of Realtors (CAR)
DRE Master Instructor
Author, DRE Disclosure Course.
Alan D. Wallace, Esq.
14011 Ventura Blvd., Suite 406
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
818/501-0133 ■ FAX 818/905-6091
www.expertwitnessre.com
e-mail: [email protected]
SECURITIES
90071-2005, (213) 553-2500, fax (213) 553-2699,
e-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.
cornerstone.com. Contact George G. Strong, Jr.
Cornerstone Research provides attorneys with expert testimony and economic and financial analyses in all phases
ROBERT C. ROSEN
Wells Fargo Center, 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite
362-1001, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.rosen-law.com. Specializing in securities law, federal securities law enforcement, securities arbitration,
and international securities, insider trading, NYSE,
AMEX, NASD disciplinary proceedings, broker-dealer,
investment company and investment adviser matters, liability under federal and state securities laws, public and
private offerings, Internet securities, and law firm liability.
AV rated. Former chair, LACBA Business and Corporations Law Section; LLM, Harvard Law School. More
than 35 years practicing securities law, 12 years with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. Published author/editor of securities regulations, including multivolume treatises. See display ad
on this page.
Securities & Business Law
SEC Enforcement Defense
International Business & Securities
Class & Derivative Actions
Insider Trading
NYSE, AMEX, FINRA Disciplinary Proceedings
Broker-Dealer, Investment Company & Investment Adviser Matters
Liability Under Federal & State Securities Laws
Public & Private Offerings
Internet Securities
Securities Arbitration
Law Firm Liability
AV Rated, Former Chair, LACBA Business & Corporations Law Section LLM, Harvard Law School.
35 years practicing Securities Law, 12 years with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Washington D.C. Published Author of Securities Regulations, including nine volume treatise.
Wells Fargo Center • 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1925 • Los Angeles, CA 90071
SECURITY
SLIP, TRIP, AND FALL
JOHN CASE, CPP-SECURITY EXPERT
2310 Coast Boulevard, Del Mar, CA 92014, (858) 7552931. Contact John D. Case, CPP. Expertise in security standards/practices, crime foreseeability, third party
crimes, guard performance, use of force, shoplifting,
parking lots, investigations, theft of trade secrets, negligent hiring/retention, and workplace violence. Over 30
years of security experience in consulting/prior employment with three Fortune 100 firms. Conducted over 800
security surveys. BS Degree in Security Administration,
Michigan State University. International Association of
Professional Security Consultants (Founding Member,
Past President, Current Board Member), Board Certified
Protection Professional (CPP).
impact. Industrial and construction accidents: OSHA issues. Automotive, industrial, consumer products:
brakes, seat belts, forklifts, machinery, tools, protective
equipment, lawn mowers, heaters, chairs, fixtures, ladders, scaffolds, fasteners. Premises liability: code analysis, stairways, ramps, doors, gates, windows, guardrails,
pools, and lighting. Slip-and-fall. Trip-and-fall. Biomechanics. Safety. Human factors. See display ad on
page 46.
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
CONSULTANTS, LLC
2275 Huntington Drive, Suite 309, San Marino, CA
91108, (626) 419-0082, fax (626) 799-7960, e-mail:
[email protected]. Contact James F. Broder,
CFE, CPP, FACFE. Author of “Risk Analysis and Security Surveys,” premisis liability, adequate vs. inadequate
security procedures and practices, expert case analysis
and testimony, corporate procedures, training and operations, kidnap, ransom, extortion, and workplace violence issues. Thirty-five years of law enforcement and
security experience, domestic and international. Listed in
the Encyclopedia of Security Management as “One of
the most highly recognized security authorities in the
US.” CA PI Lic. 0021073.
SERVICE STATIONS
THE REYNOLDS GROUP
P.O. Box 1996, Tustin, CA 92781-1996, (714) 7305397, fax (714) 730-6476, e-mail: edreynolds
@reynolds-group.com. Web site: www.reynolds-group
.com. Contact Ed Reynolds. Principal of the Reynolds
Group, an environmental consulting, contracting, and
consulting firm. Experienced in matters related to environmental contamination, assessment and remediation, reasonable value of construction, and related financial matters. Degrees from USC, BS, Civil Eng.,
1981; University of Houston, MS, Civil Eng., 1984;
and Harvard, MBA, 1986. California registered civil engineer, licensed contractor. Adjunct faculty member at
the USC School of Engineering and member of its
Board of Councilors.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION
EQUILAW
10061 Riverside Drive, # 536, Toluca Lake, CA 91602,
(818) 762-7676, fax (818) 762-8003, e-mail: jyanow
@equilaw.com. Web site: www.equilaw.com. Contact
Julie B Yanow, Principal. Over two decades of employment and labor law experience. EquiLaw assists
clients with workplace investigations of harassment,
discrimination, retaliation/other misconduct; workplace
training in harassment/discrimination prevention, HR
practices, management skills, and executive coaching.
EquiLaw also offers expert consulting/testimony regarding the prevention, investigation, elimination of unlawful
workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
NINA T. RODD, PHD, QME, DABPS
Los Angeles office: 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200,
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274, Newport Beach
office: 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100, Newport Beach, CA 92660, (310) 378-7172, fax (310)
.psych-expert.com. Contact Nina T. Rodd, PhD.
Comprehensive psychological/ psychodiagnostic
testing and evaluation, medical and records review,
expert witness testimony, and consulting.
STATE BAR DEFENSE & PREVENTATIVE
LAW
CA 91403, (818) 986-9890, fax (818) 986-1757,
e-mail: [email protected]. Web sites: www
.CAStateBarDefense.com. Contact Phillip Feldman.
Former: State Bar Examiner, Judge Pro Tem. Attorney
Client fee Arbitrator 30 years. Ethics author and lecturer.
Former accountant, BS Accounting, MBA. Trial lawyer
40 years.
TAXATION
KAJAN MATHER AND BARISH
9777 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 805, Beverly Hills, CA
90212, (310) 278-6080, fax (310) 278-4805, e-mail: ehk
@taxdisputes.com. Web site: www.taxdisputes.com.
Contact Elliott H. Kajan. The firm’s practice is devoted
to representation of taxpayers before the Internal Revenue
Service, Franchise Tax Board, State Board of Equalization, and California Employment Development Department, involving tax audits, administrative appeals proceedings, tax collection matters, complex tax litigation,
and criminal tax investigations and trials. The firm also
represents and advises accountants and attorneys regarding tax penalties and professional responsibility
matters.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION SPECIALISTS
(Field Test Engineering Inc,) 4510 Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 200, Long Beach, CA 90804, (800) 675-7667, fax
(562) 494-7667. Also: 11440 Bernardo Court, Suite 300,
San Diego, CA 92127, 8275 South Eastern Avenue, Suite
200, Las Vegas, NV 89123; 2900 Adams Street, Riverside, CA 92604, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, TX
79912. Web site: www.FieldAndTestEngineering.com.
Contact Robert F. Douglas, PE – engineering manager. Registered professional engineer in California and
Arizona, member – NCUTCD, I.T.F., ASTM, Transp. Research Board, ASCE, SAE, ATSSA, IEEE. Profile: Accident reconstruction, failure analysis, traffic, and transportation. Engineering: auto/truck/train/ped/bike/cycle
accidents. See display ad on page 51.
WILLIAM KUNZMAN, PE
1111 Town and Country #34, Orange, CA 92868, (714)
973-8383, fax (714) 973-8821, e-mail: mail@traffic-engineer
.com. Web site: www.traffic-engineer.com. Contact
William Kunzman, PE. Traffic expert witness since
1979, both defense and plaintiff. Auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle accidents. Largest verdict:
$10,300,000 in pedestrian accident case against Los
Angeles Unified School District. Largest settlement:
Undergraduate work—UCLA; graduate work—Yale
University.
TRAVEL AND TOURISM
ALEXANDER ANOLIK, ESQ.
2107 Van Ness Boulevard, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA
94109, (415) 673-3333, fax (415) 673-3548, e-mail:
[email protected]. Web site: www.travellaw.com.
Contact Al Anolik. Consultation and expert testimony
on custom and practice for airline, cruise line, travel agencies, tour operators, motor coach, tour escorts/guides, incentive/meeting planners, and applicability of travel and
tourism regulation. Evaluation, computation/valuation of
tourism entities for purchase, sale, economic damages, or
ADR hearings. Tourism security and restraint issues and
crisis management implementation and manuals. Author
and professor with actual consulting experience with
more tour entities than any other legal/custom and practice consultant.
WASTEWATER
JOHN SHAW CONSULTING, LLC
P.O. Box 4259, Truckee, CA 96160, (530) 550-1576, fax
(530) 579-3388, e-mail: [email protected]. Web site:
www.shawengr.com. Contact John Shaw, PE.
Water/wastewater/sewer industry—unique combination
of operations and engineering background. Sanitary engineering including water (potable) and wastewater (industrial and domestic) treatment, conveyance, hydraulics,
storage, reuse, master planning, operations, maintenance, and expert witness and forensic (mode of failure
and standard of care analysis; engineering analysis; product suitability and construction defect issues). Wastewater
treatment plants, disposal/reuse facilities, sewage lift station design, sewer collection systems and sludge treatment. Water treatment plants, pipelines, and swimming
pools.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Assistant Clinical Professor Orthopaedic Surgery, UCLA.
(818) 985-3051, fax (818) 985-3049, e-mail: expert
:(6(59($1<7+,1*
$1<:+(5(
67$7(:,'(1$7,21:,'(:25/':,'(

ZZZVHUYHGFRPHPDLOLQIR#VHUYHGFRP
&DOOIRUFRVW 352&(66
!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%
!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%
,17(51$7,21$/
)D[
86$2QO\
,IZHGRQ
WVHUYHLW
\RXGRQ
WSD\
352&(66
!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.
!.934!4% !.9.!4)/. !.97(%2% !.934!4% !.9.!4)/. !.97(%2% !.934!4% !.9.!4)/.
!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%!.934!4%!.9.!4)/.!.97(%2%
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR FOUNDATION’S 2007-2008
FUND DRIVE raised nearly $351,000 from corporations, individuals, law firms and others. Direct contributions from law firms totaled
$148,900; individuals contributed $109,292; and corporations and
others contributed $20,659. In addition to these direct contributions,
$72,123 was contributed to the Foundation by individuals, corporations
and law firms by means of the Association’s annual dues statement voluntary contribution.
The Foundation wishes to express sincere thanks to all who
contributed during the 2007-2008 campaign. As part of the
procedures required in connection with its annual audit, the
INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTIONS
$5,000 and above
Thomas V. Girardi
Ruth J. Lavine
$2,000-$4,999
John M. Byrne
Richard E. Garcia
Margaret Levy
Jill Switzer
$1,000-$1,999
Linda Auerbach Allderdice
Don Mike Anthony
John S. Chang
John J. Collins
Glen B. Collyer
Andrew J. Demetriou
Robert W. Dickerson
Mark Garscia
Noah Graff & Audra Mori
Richard E. Hodge
Lawrence E. Leone
James C. Martin
Edith R. Matthai
Eric R. McDonough
Theodore N. Miller
Frederick M. Nicholas
Ellen A. Pansky
John J. Quinn
Mitchell C. Regenstreif
Linda M. Stude
Rhonda R. Trotter
Eric A. Webber & Gerard C.
Kraaijeveld
Valerie & Martin Webster
Daniel J. Woods
Donna J. Zenor
$500-$999
Teresa A. Beaudet
Kappy K. Bristol
Jamie Broder
Carolyn C. Burger
Robert E. Carlson
Paul S. Chan
Tyrone R. Childress
Walter Cochran-Bond
Lawrence A. Cox & Barbara Bauer
Mark T. Cramer
Hon. Lawrence W. Crispo
Katessa Charles Davis
Alexandra Denman
Gregory Evans
Gregg A. Farley
Stuart A. Forsyth
Seth M. Gerber
Jo-Ann W. Grace
Amos E. Hartston
Christopher J. Heck
Peter Hsiao
Andres C. Hurwitz
Linda M. Lawson
Emma Luevano
Kerry Lyon-Grossman
Rick C. Madden
Hon. Nora M. Manella
Sarretta C. McDonough
Richard H. Nakamura, Jr.
Gretchen M. Nelson
Kalia C. Petmecky
Patricia D. Phillips
Dennis D. Resh
Alice A. Salvo
Laura A. Seigle
Marc M. Seltzer
Wayne Simon
Dianne Baquet Smith
Jeffrey C. Soza
Alan K. Steinbrecher
Susan Steinhauser
David R. Stepp
Susan Koehler Sullivan
William E. Thomson
Paul D. Tripodi II
Jane Shay Wald
$200-$499
April L. Ammeter
Mollie F. Benedict
Michael K. Brown
Dylan M. Carson
Brian K. Condon
Linda L. Curtis
Patricia Egan Daehnke
Patrick W. Dennis
Stephen R. English & Mollie
Munger
Charles A. Gessler
Larry M. Golub
Marcia Z. Gordon
Joseph G. Gorman
Feris M. Greenberger
Alan N. Halkett
Brian L. Holman
Curtiss L. Isler
Ronald L. Johnston & Joan L.
Lesser
Walter R. Lancaster
Ryan S. LeVine
Larry & Bobbie Liebenbaum
Tomas R. Lopez
LeAnne E. Maillian
Hon. Michael D. Marcus
Kathleen M. McDowell
Charles E. Michaels
Hon. Anthony J. Mohr
Ann I. Park
Ralph B. Perry III
Christopher Q. Pham
Kevin D. Rising
Melanie Hanson Sartoris
Richard K. Smith, Jr.
Paul D. Supnik
Richard P. Sybert
N. Denise Taylor
Kim Tung
John D. Vandevelde
Caroline C. Vincent
Hon. Charles S. Vogel
Robert S. Warren
Kenneth P. White
Earl P. Willens
Suzanne V. Wilson
Julie & Ted Xanders
LAW FIRM
CONTRIBUTIONS
$15,000 and above
Latham & Watkins LLP
2007-2008
FUND DRIVE
RESULTS
$6,000-$14,999
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Morrison & Foerster Foundation
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
$5,000-$5,999
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &
Feld LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP
Sidley Austin LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP
Trope and Trope LLP
$3,000-$4,999
Arnold & Porter LLP
Irell & Manella LLP
McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Reed Smith LLP
White & Case LLP
$2,000-$2,999
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert,
Nessim, Drooks &
Lincenberg APC
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Howrey LLP
Jaffe & Clemens
Jones Day
Perkins Coie LLP
$1,000-$1,999
Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble &
Mallory LLP
Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe
& Nichols APC
Cotkin & Collins APC
Greines, Martin, Stein &
Richland LLP
Hahn & Hahn LLP
Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher
& Perez P.C.
Holland & Knight LLP
Horvitz & Levy LLP
Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP
Kaufman, Young, Spiegel,
Robinson & Kenerson LLP
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith LLP
Liner, Yankelevitz, Sunshine &
Regenstreif LLP
Meserve, Mumper & Hughes LLP
Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw,
Pittman LLP
Rutter, Hobbs & Davidoff Inc.
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran &
Arnold LLP
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Theodora, Oringher, Miller &
Richman PC
Tucker, Ellis & West LLP
Foundation hereby lists all individuals who made contributions of
$200 or more, and all law firms, corporations, and other organizations
that contributed $1,000 or more during the period beginning July 1,
2007, and ending June 30, 2008. If you are not listed below, and you
made a contribution to the Foundation fitting any of the above criteria,
please contact the Foundation’s independent certified public
accountants, Green, Hasson & Janks LLP, by calling Tom Barry directly
at (310) 873-1647. (Note: The Foundation records gifts made by check
on the date of receipt, not the date written on the check.)
The Foundation regrets that space limitations prevent the listing
of the names of all contributors.
Wasserman, Comden &
Casselman LLP
Weissmann, Wolff, Bergman,
Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
$10,000 and above
American Corporate Counsel
Association—
Southern California Chapter
$4,000-$9,999
LACBA Corporate Law
Departments Section
$2,500-$3,999
LACBA Family Law Section
Merrill Corporation
$1,000-$2,499
Ralphs Grocery Co.
IN MEMORY OF...
JUNE L. ARDEN, by
Lawyers Club of Los Angeles
County
JOSEPH A. BALL, by
Thomas J. Leanse
William A. Norris
HON. PAUL BOLAND, by
Ruth J. Lavine
CHARLES R. ENGLISH, by
LeAnne E. Maillian
ANN EPSTEIN, by
Lawyers Club of Los Angeles
County
KELLEY J. HAGER, by
Melissa A. Dalziel
RODERICK W. LEONARD, by
Don Mike Anthony
Grace Midori Danziger
Charles A. Gessler
Robert L. Kehr
Louisa Lau
Hon. Michael D. Marcus
Margaret P. Stevens & Robin
Meadow
John D. Vandevelde
R. GERALD MARKLE, by
Ellen A. Pansky
DAVID AND DEBI NEIGER, by
Barclay Edmundson
ROBERT M. NEWELL, SR., by
Mary W. Newell
LINDA E. SALTZMAN, by
Robert M. Saltzman
CLARA G. STEVENSON, by
Karen L. Stevenson
VINCENT M. TOWNSEND, JR., by
David S. Ettinger
Ralph B. Perry III
IN HONOR OF...
ROY H. AARON, by
Hon. Kenji Machida
MOLLIE F. BENEDICT, by
Dylan M. Carson
JOHN H. BRINSLEY, by
Margaret Levy
Ann I. Park
KATESSA CHARLES DAVIS, by
Rosalyn S. Zakheim
PATRICK M. KELLY, by
Judith & Herman Palarz
MITCHELL C. REGENSTREIF, by
Symeon K. Davis
LAURA A. SEIGLE, by
Joseph M. Lipner
Jane Shay Wald
PAUL D. TRIPODI II, by
Catherine Valerio Barrad
The Foundation would also like
to give special recognition to the
following individuals whose
participation in various pledge
programs (as of 6/30/08)
reflects a firm commitment to
the Foundation’s goals:
HONOR ROLL
Participants have contributed, or
pledged to contribute, the
amounts shown for each category in annual minimum installments of at least $1,000. (List
includes participants as of
6/30/08.)
Founder ($50,000 or more)
Hyman J. Bradofsky
Thomas V. Girardi
Hutto Patterson Charitable
Foundation
J.W. & Ida M. Jameson Foundation
Hon. Richard A. & Ruth J. Lavine
Donald C. Mitchell
Ralph J. Shapiro
Benefactor ($25,000-$49,999)
Roy H. Aaron
Jules & Doris Stein Foundation
Lloyd & Susan Stockel
Patron ($15,000-$24,999)
Don Mike Anthony
Joseph R. Austin
William J. Bogaard
Robert E. Carlson
Richard Chernick
Knox M. Cologne III
Stephen R. English & Molly
Munger
Stanley F. Farrar
Robert K. Johnson
Robin Meadow
Gavin Miller
In Honor of David Pascale
John J. Quinn
In Honor of Richard Walch
Robert S. Warren
Daniel J. Woods
Sponsor ($10,000-$14,999)
Joseph W. Aidlin
John Carson
Gerald L. Chaleff
John J. Collins
Glen B. Collyer
Charles R. English
Richard E. Garcia
Mark Garscia
Harry L. Hathaway
Richard E. Hodge
Patrick M. Kelly
Joel W. H. Kleinberg
Margaret Levy
Larry & Bobbie Liebenbaum
James C. Martin
Neal S. Millard
Theodore N. Miller
Covert E. Parnell III
Wayne Simon
Joseph Taback
David H. Vena
Martin H. Webster
Donna J. Zenor
Friend ($5,000-$9,999)
Linda Auerbach Allderdice
Steven W. Bacon
Charles G. Bakaly, Jr.
Donald P. Baker
Teresa A. Beaudet
Patricia H. Benson
John S. Chang
Walter Cochran-Bond
Paul F. & Isabel R. Cohen
Brian K. Condon
Joe D. Crider
Donald A. Daucher
Katessa Charles Davis
Andrew J. Demetriou
Robert W. Dickerson
Lee Edmon & Dick Burdge
Larry R. Feldman
Albert S. Golbert
David E. Gordon & Mary D. Lane
Noah Graff & Audra Mori
Hon. William P. Gray
Sarah Heck Griffin
Rex S. Heinke
Hon. William P. Hogoboom
Maria D. Hummer
John D. Hussey
Joan R. Isaacs
Leonard S. Janofsky
Vincent W. Jones
Martha B. Jordan
James H. Kindel, Jr.
Sandra R. King
Richard G. LaPorte
Lawrence E. Leone
Bernard E. & Joan M. LeSage
Edith R. Matthai
Malissa Hathaway McKeith
Hon. Anthony J. Mohr
Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
Hon. Margaret A. Nagle
Richard H. Nakamura, Jr.
Gretchen M. Nelson
John F. O’Hara
Ronald L. Olson
Andrea Sheridan Ordin
Ellen A. Pansky
David J. & Cynthia F. Pasternak
Aulana L. Peters
Thomas D. Phelps
Mitchell C. Regenstreif
Kenneth O. Rhodes
Douglas Ring
Reade H. Ryan, Jr.
Harvey L. Silbert
Sheldon H. Sloan
Linda J. Smith
Linda M. Stude
Jill Switzer
John D. Taylor
William W. Vaughn
Hon. Robert Weil
John S. Welch
Francis M. Wheat
Kenneth P. White
In Memory of Arnold V. Winthrop
Hon. Paul Wyler
PRESIDENTS CLUB
Former Bar Association or Bar
Foundation presidents who have
contributed or pledged to contribute a minimum of $5,000 to
the Foundation. (List includes
participants as of 6/30/08.)
Roy H. Aaron
Don Mike Anthony
Joseph R. Austin
Donald P. Baker
Robert E. Carlson
John Carson
Gerald Chaleff
Richard Chernick
John J. Collins
Glen B. Collyer
Knox M. Cologne III
Donald A. Daucher
Hon. Lee Smalley Edmon
Charles R. English
Stephen R. English
Larry R. Feldman
David E. Gordon
Hon. William P. Gray
Sarah Heck Griffin
Harry L. Hathaway
Rex S. Heinke
John D. Hussey
Joan R. Isaacs
Leonard S. Janofsky
Vincent W. Jones
Patrick M. Kelly
Ruth J. Lavine
Fred L. Leydorf
Lawrence F. Liebenbaum
Edith R. Matthai
Robin Meadow
Neal S. Millard
Gavin Miller
Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
Gretchen M. Nelson
John F. O’Hara
Andrea Sheridan Ordin
David J. Pasternak
John J. Quinn
Sheldon H. Sloan
Susan R. Stockel
John D. Taylor
Robert S. Warren
Martin H. Webster
John S. Welch
Francis M. Wheat
Daniel J. Woods
Donna J. Zenor
LIFE FELLOWS
A Life Fellow has contributed, or
pledged to contribute, $2,500 to
the Foundation. Annual installments must be at least $500.
(List includes participants as of
6/30/08 who have made a contri-
bution within the last 10 years.)
James N. Adler
Paula Ambrosini
Hon. Orville A. Armstrong
Jane H. Barrett
Commr. Lori R. Behar
Mollie F. Benedict
Jennifer A. Bensch
Ivy Kagan Bierman
Michael I. Blaylock
Merrick J. Bobb
Phillip L. Bosl
Kappy K. Bristol
Jamie Broder
Thomas M. Brown
Carolyn C. Burger
John M. Byrne
Paul A. Catalano
Paul S. Chan
Tyrone R. Childress
Jordan S. Cohen
Arlene Colman-Schwimmer
Mark T. Cramer
Hon. Lawrence W. Crispo
Hon. H. Walter Croskey
Patricia Egan Daehnke
Grace M. Danziger
Albert F. Davis
Alexandra Denman
Pamela Dunn & Maria Louise
Cousineau
Gregory Evans
Laura V. Farber
Gregg A. Farley
Hon. Macklin Fleming
Stuart A. Forsyth
Georgia Franklin-Shutan
Jeffrey C. Freedman
James J. Gallagher
Seth M. Gerber
Russell T. Ginise
Richard B. Goetz
Hon. Arnold H. Gold
Jo-Ann W. Grace
Jan Charles Gray
Feris M. Greenberger
Alan N. Halkett
Amos E. Hartston
Christopher J. Heck
Hon. Rex Heeseman
Grover R. Heyler
Leonard Horwin
Peter Hsiao
Andres C. Hurwitz
Bernard S. Kamine
Kelly W. Kay
Linda M. Lawson
James D. Layden
Michael S. Lurey
Kerry Lyon-Grossman
Rick C. Madden
LeAnne E. Maillian
Hon. Nora M. Manella
Vicki E. Marmorstein & Seth A.
Ribner
Eric R. McDonough
Sarretta C. McDonough
Kathleen M. McDowell
Michael E. Meyer
Charles E. Michaels
Mark A. Neubauer
Robert H. Nida
Andrew J. Nocas
Stacey Olliff & Tracy Rich
Commr. Steff Padilla
Lee R. Petillon
Kalia C. Petmecky
Barbara A. Reeves Neal
Dennis D. Resh
Hon. Andria K. Richey
David K. Robinson
Deborah J. Ruosch
Harvey I. Saferstein
Nicholas P. Saggese
Marc L. Sallus
Alice A. Salvo
Laura A. Seigle
Marc M. Seltzer
Patricia L. Shanks
Jeffrey C. Soza
John R. Stahr
Sheryl E. Stein
Alan K. Steinbrecher
David R. Stepp
David W. Steuber
Susan Koehler Sullivan
William E. Thomson
Eugene L. Trope
Rhonda R. Trotter
Susan J. Troy
David C. Tseng
Patric M. Verrone
Caroline C. Vincent
Richard S. Volpert
Richard Walch
Eric A. Webber & Gerard C.
Kraaijeveld
Karen B. Wong & Scott W. Lee
Kenneth B. Wright
Rosalyn S. Zakheim
Michael G. Soutar
Margaret P. Stevens
Courtney L. Stuart-Alban
David W. Swift
Paul D. Tripodi II
Kim Tung
Gavin Hachiya Wasserman
Kathleen MacFarlane Waters
SUPPORTING MEMBERS
Individuals who have pledged to
contribute a minimum of $100
annually to the Foundation.
Those with asterisks have previously completed pledges at the
Barristers Fellow*, Life Fellow**
or Honor Roll*** level and have
chosen to continue supporting
the Foundation with an annual
gift. (List includes participants as
of 6/30/08.)
2007-08 FELLOWS
Individuals who contributed a
minimum of $500 between
7/1/07 and 6/30/08 and are not
Barristers Fellows, Life Fellows or
Honor Roll participants.
Lawrence A. Cox & Barbara Bauer
Frederick M. Nicholas
Dianne Baquet Smith
Susan Steinhauser
Jane Shay Wald
BARRISTERS FELLOWS
A Barristers Fellow has contributed, or pledged to contribute
over a five-year period, $500 to
the Foundation. Barristers are
individuals who are 36 years of
age or less or who have been in
practice 10 years or less. (List
includes participants as of
6/30/08.)
Randee Barak
Jonathan L. Brophy
Shawn C. Chou
Luci-Ellen M. Chun
Kimberly H. Clancy
Anthony Paul Diaz
Jacqueline J. Harding
Rose A. Hickman
Cindy Johnson
Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell
Nancy A. Kaiser
Princeton H. Kim
Ryan S. LeVine
Seth D. Levy
Emma Luevano
Ritu M. Manjunath
Jennifer F. Novak
Christopher Q. Pham
Angela J. Reddock
Andrea Schoor
Michelle Inouye Schultz
Allison N. Shue
Don Mike Anthony***
Hon. Helen I. Bendix
Michael H. Bierman
George F. Bird, Jr.
Maxwell M. Blecher
Brad D. Brian
Lester O. Brown
William Clark Brown
Elizabeth M. Calciano*
John L. Carlton
Alan B. Clark
Hon. H. Walter Croskey**
Brian L. Davidoff
Jeffrey W. Erdman
Jack I. Esensten
Amy J. Fink
Michele E. Flurer*
Thomas A. Freiberg, Jr.
Robert S. Gerstein
Ethan P. Greene
Brian D. Huben
Shirley M. Hufstedler
Joan R. Isaacs***
Lois M. Jacobs
Samantha Phillips Jessner
Henry J. Josefsberg
Ruth D. Kahn*
Marcia L. Kraft
Miriam A. Krinsky
Hon. Robert N. Kwan
Elisha Fara Landman
Edward A. Landry
Thomas J. Leanse
Tomas R. Lopez
LeAnne E. Maillian**
Elaine W. Mandel
Linda Wight Mazur
Frederick L. McKnight
Danette E. Meyers
Ralph B. Perry
John J. Quinn***
Jerrold B. Reilly
Toby J. Rothschild
Peter Schnaitman
Michael & Lara Schwartz*
Arthur F. Silbergeld
Paul D. Supnik
Michael A. Tomasulo
Patricia A. Van Dyke
John D. Vandevelde
Caroline C. Vincent**
Richard Walch**
Earl P. Willens
Roxanne M. Wilson
Rosalyn S. Zakheim**
Michael C. Zellers
Fund-raising for the current fiscal year (7/1/2008-6/30/2009) is now underway. The Foundation makes grants to law-related projects serving Los Angeles County. Visit the LACBF Web
page at www.lacba.org/foundation to learn more about the Foundation and to see a list of its 2008 grant recipients. You may also contact the Foundation’s administrator, Linda Stude, at
(213) 896-6409 or e-mail her at [email protected]. To lend your support, send a tax-deductible contribution to: Los Angeles County Bar Foundation, PO Box 55020, Los Angeles, CA
90055-2020. Donations may also be made on-line at www.lacba.org/foundation by clicking on the Donate Now button.
Experts and Consultants
NEED AN EXPERT WITNESS, legal consultant, arbitrator, mediator, private judge, attorney who outsources, investigator, or evidence specialist? Make
your job easier by visiting www.expert4law.org.
Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, expert4law—the Legal Marketplace is a comprehensive online service for you to find exactly the
experts you need.
EVIDENCE SOLUTIONS, INC. The professional computer forensics firm with 20+ years experience.
Deposition and trial experience. Computer and technology forensics consulting specializing in recovery,
acquisition, preservation, and analysis of data as
evidence, including data purposefully destroyed or
obfuscated. Our team of experts will manage your
project to ensure data is properly handled to meet
and exceed industry standards and evidentiary
requirements are maintained. These techniques can
save data from Web sites, files, fax machines, all
types of media, and e-mails. Experienced expert witness testimony in both court and arbitration cases.
Skilled at databases, source code copyright, docu-
ments, e-mails, images, accounting systems, hacking events, tracking down perpetrators, and password cracking. P.O. Box 42047, Tucson, AZ 85733,
866-795-7166, fax 520-722-6796, e-mail: [email protected], website www.greeatscott.com
ship with a Pasadena or other So. Cal. Estate Planning practitioner who is looking to downsize or
retire. E-mail: [email protected] or call Jo
Ann (626) 792-2910.
Valuations and Appraisals
Family Law
PROFESSIONAL MONITORED VISITATIONS. Offering a family friendly approach to high-conflict custody situations. FCMS, over 20 years of experience. Available hourly or extended basis, and will
travel. Immediate response, Family Law & Dependency Court, referrals accepted. Serving: San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, and all of Los Angeles
County and immediate surrounding areas. Contact
Ilene Fletcher. (800) 526-5179 or (818) 968-8586,
www.fcmonitoring.com.
Ready to Retire?
WE ARE A LONG ESTABLISHED, boutique estate
planning, trust administration, and tax planning
firm looking to grow its business through relation-
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL,
estate homes, apartments, land, eminent domain,
special-use, easements, fractional interests, and
expert witness. Twenty-five years of experience. All
of Southern California with emphasis in Los Angeles County and Orange County areas. First Metro Appraisals, Lee Walker, MAI, (714) 744-1074. Also see
Web page: www.firstmetroappraisals.com.
MISSION APPRAISAL, INC. Fast, friendly, and competent! Charles and Anne Cochran, residential real
estate appraisers with 20 years experience appraising for attorneys practicing estate planning, taxes,
trusts, bankruptcy, divorce, family law, real estate,
etc. in Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. (818) 438-1395, ccochran
@scal.rr.com, mission2appraise.com. CA license
AR009756.
DR. J.R. NORIEGA / ALLEN BUI
— TWO CLINICS TO SERVE YOU —
ALLEN BUI, D. C. CHIROPRACTIC
1184 E. Holt Avenue, Pomona, CA 91767 • 909-865-1945
MONTEBELLO WELLNESS CENTER
Dr. J. R. Noriega
901 W. Whittier Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640 • 323-728-8268/800-624-2866
Personal Injury and Slip & Fall cases accepted on lien basis.
BAIL BONDS
BAIL BONDS
All Jails • 24 Hour Service
Can’t Remember the Number?
JUST DIAL...
626-369-2666
NORIEGA BAIL BONDS
Lic. #BA0350923
201 1st Street, La Puente, CA 91744
323 COD BOND
323 263 2663
Accident Reconstruction Specialists, p. 51
Tel. 562-743-7230 www.FieldAndTestEngineering.com
Forensic Expert Witness Association, p. 52
Tel. 949-640-9903 www.forensic.org
Park Dietz and Associates, Inc., p. 55
Tel. 949-723-2211 www.parkdietzassociates.com
Ahern Insurance Brokerage, p. 2
Tel. 800-282-9786 x101 [email protected]
ForensisGroup Inc., p. 45
Tel. 626-795-5000 www.forensisgroup.com
Charles Pereyra-Suarez, p. 49
Tel. 213-623-5923 www.cpslawfirm.com
Air, Weather & Sea Conditions, Inc., p. 68
Tel. 818-645-8632 www.weatherman.org
Marc J. Friedman, M.D., p. 67
Tel. 818-901-6600 e-mail: [email protected]
The Psychological Trauma Center, p. 72
Tel. 415-292-7119 www.expertchildpsychiatry.com
AMFS, Inc. (American Medical Forensic Specialists, Inc.), p. 67
Tel. 800-275-8903 www.amfs.com
FULCRUM Financial Inquiry LLP, p. 1
Tel. 213-787-4100 www.fulcruminquiry.com
Resident Agents of Nevada, p. 37
Tel. 775-882-4641, 888-463-8462 www.nevada.com
Arbitration and Mediation Group, p. 4
Tel. 818-790-1851 www.mediationla.com
G. L. Howard CPA, p. 39
Rosen & Associates, PC, p. 73
Tel. 213-362-1000 www.rosen-law.com
A R Tech Forensic Experts, Inc., p. 46
Tel. 818-344-2700 e-mail:[email protected]
Steven L. Gleitman, Esq., p. 4
Tel. 310-553-5080
Roughan & Associates at LINC, p. 51
Tel. 626-303-6333 x16 e-mail: [email protected]
Bates Expert Witness Real Estate, p. 71
Global Corporate Services, Inc., p. 38
Tel. 561-968-6611 www.global-inter.net
Saltzburg Ray & Bergman, LLP, p. 51
Tel. 310-481-6700 www.srblaw.com
Lee Jay Berman, p.17
Tel. 213-383-0438 www.leejayberman.com
Graham A Purcell, MD., Inc., p. 71
Anita Rae Shapiro, p. 42
Tel. 714-529-0415 www.adr-shapiro.com
Bridgeport Continuing Legal Education, p. 17
Grubb & Ellis Company, p. 28
Tel. 213-596-2222 www.Grubb-Ellis.com
Steven Peck’s Premier Legal, p. 30
Tel. 866-999-9085 www.premierlegal.org,
Dr. Kenneth H. Brown, Chemical Expert Witness, p. 53
Guaranteed Subpoena, p. 75
Tel. 800-PROCESS (776-2377) e-mail: [email protected]
Steven R. Sauer APC, p. 42
The California Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, p. 40, 41
Tel. 310-341-3879 www.CaliforniaNeutrals.org
Gursey, Schneider & Company, p. 50
Tel. 310-552-0960 www.gursey.com
Stephen Sears, CPA-Attorney at Law, p. 42
www.searsatty.com
California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC, p. 39
Tel. 818-957-0477 www.caledlaw.com
Hargis & Associates, Inc., p. 61
Tel. 800-554-2744 www.hargis.com
Eric R Steinwald Accountancy Corp., p. 49
Tel. 310-207-9980 www.erscpa.com
Case in Point Consulting, Inc., p. 39
Higgins, Marcus & Lovett, Inc., p. 53
Tel. 213-617-7775 www.hmlinc.com
Stonefield Josephson, Inc., p. 5
Tel. 866-225-4511 www.sjaccounting.com
Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett, p. 6
Tel. 310-277-4857 www.cdrb-law.com
The Holmes Law Firm, p. 8
Tel. 626-432-7222 www.theholmeslawfirm.com
TASA, Technical Advisory Service for Attorneys, p. 65
Tel. 800-523-2319 www.tasanet.com
Cohen Miskei & Mowrey, p. 57
Jack Trimarco & Associates Polygraph, Inc., p. 69
Tel. 310-247-2637 www.jacktrimarco.com
Ten-28 Investigations, p. 6
Tel. 415-999-0286 www.ten-28.com
Coldwell Banker, p. 4
Tel. 310-442-1398 www.mickeykessler.com
KARS Advanced Materials, Inc., p. 69
Tel. 714- 892-8987 www.karslab.com
Thomas Neches & Company, p. 63
Tel. 213-624-8150 www.thomasneches.com
Cook Construction, p. 46
Law Offices of Rock O. Kendall, p. 42
Tel. 949-365-5844 www.dmv-law.com
Thompson West, Back Cover
Tel. 800-762-5272 www.thompsonwestgroup.com
Commerce Escrow Company, p. 30
Tel. 213-484-0855 www.comescrow.com
Krycler, Ervin, Taubman & Walheim, p. 65
Tel. 818-995-1040 www.ketw.com
UCLA Extension, p. 29
Tel. 310-206-1409 www.uclaextension.edu/finance
Lawrence W. Crispo, p. 8
Lawrence H. Jacobson, Esq., p. 57
Tel. 310-271-0747 www.lawrencejacobson.com
Union Bank of California, p. 9
Tel. 310-550-6400 (B.H.), 213-236-7736 (L.A.) www.uboc.com
DataChasers.com, p. 52
Tel. 951-780-7892 www.datachasers.com
Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Co., p. 7
Tel. 800-252-2045 www.lawyersmutual.com
University of LaVerne College of Law, p. 13
Tel. 877-858-4529 www.law.ulv.edu
DepoSums Deposition Summaries, p. 45
Tel. 800-789-DEPO (800-789-3376) www.deposums.biz
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, p. 38
Tel. 888-773-9958 [email protected]
URS, p. 53
Tel. 213-996-2555 www.urscorp.com
Diana G. Lesgart, An Accountancy Corp., p. 45
Lexis Publishing, Inside Front Cover, p. 11
www.lexis.com
Law Offices of Alan D. Wallace, p. 73
Tel. 818-501-0133 www.expertwitnessre.com
Econ One Research, Inc., p. 65
MCLE4LAWYERS.COM, p. 39
Tel. 310-552-5382 www.MCLEforlawyers.com
Waronzof Associates, P. 61
Tel. 310-954-8060 www.waronzof.com
Ed Milich, p. 59
Clinton E. Miller, JD, p. 45
Tel. 408-279-1034 www.millerjd.qpg.com
Michael R. Weinraub, M.D., p. 59
Educational Seminars Institute, p. 31
Tel. 866-547-6083 www.ESISEMS.com
Mr. Truck, p. 57
Tel. 925-625-4994 or 800-337-4994 e-mail: [email protected]
White, Zuckerman, Warsavsky, Luna, Wolf & Hunt, p. 47
Tel. 818-981-4226 www.wzwlw.com
EquiLaw, p. 59
Tel. 818-762-7676 e-mail [email protected]
National Properties Group, p. 71
Tel. 310-516-0022
Witkin & Eisinger, LLC, p. 57
Tel. 310-670-1500
E. L. Evans & Associates, p. 71
Tel. 310-559-4005
Noriega Clinics, p. 78
Tel. 323-728-8268
Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group, p. 38
Tel 310-570-4088 www.wolfsdorf.com
First Indemnity Insurance Services, Inc., p. 15
Tel. 800-982-1151 www.firstindemnity.net
Pacific Construction Consultants, Inc. (PCCI), p. 73
Tel. 916-638-4848 www.pcci.biz
Zivetz, Schwartz & Saltsman, p. 49
Tel. 310-826-1040 www.zsscpa.com
Forensic Construction Defect & Engr, Inc./Expert Witness, p. 68
Pacific Health & Safety Consulting, Inc., p. 67
Tel. 949-253-4065 www.phsc-web.com
closing argument
BY JUSTICE ROGER BOREN
An ACE for Los Angeles High School Students
On the day of the special session, the students traveled by school
FOR YEARS, JOSEPH LANE (the clerk and executive officer of the
Second Appellate District) and I discussed the possibility of taking bus to the Ronald Reagan Building and were brought to our courtappellate court proceedings to high school students. In some of the room on the third floor. The clerk of the court and others gave them
other five California appellate districts the appellate bench has taken an introduction, and the students met the advocates on the appeal.
its show on the road to smaller communities and held proceedings Soon the justices took the bench in the traditional manner, and oral
in either the local courthouse or in a high school auditorium. We rec- argument ensued in accordance with the normal routine. At the conognized that such outreach activities were not easily adapted to, or clusion of the arguments and after the justices had left the bench, the
reasonably feasible in, the megalopolis of Los Angeles. However, we students were addressed again by the clerk and were able to ask the
came upon a model: Division Six of the Second District, located in arguing attorneys questions about the case, why they chose to become
Ventura, established a program with two local high schools that we attorneys, and their backgrounds. That session lasted about a half hour,
thought could be adapted to Los Angeles. But
we needed a way to greatly expand the reach
of the program to make it available to the
Students also gain an awareness that they, too, may find a role
large number of schools in the city.
Fortuitously, in early 2004, Marshall
Croddy, vice president of the Constitutional
in the legal system and that this goal is not beyond their reach.
Rights Foundation, asked us if the CRF might
assist in developing a curriculum for high
school classes that would involve our court.
Croddy and Laura Wesley, director of law programs for the CRF, pro- and then the students were broken into groups, and each group was
posed a program with three phases. First, volunteer attorneys would ushered to one of the participating justice’s chambers. In the inforvisit high school classrooms and orient the students about the appel- mality of the chambers, each justice addressed the students conlate process and a particular appellate case. Then, the students would cerning the proceedings—being careful not to comment inappropritravel to our courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Building to hear oral ately about the case itself—and then entertained questions. The
arguments and interact with the attorneys and the justices involved enthusiasm of the students was quite evident.
Since that inaugural run of ACE in 2004, the program has been
with the case. Finally, after the court filed its opinion, the volunteer
attorneys would revisit the classrooms to discuss the case outcome. repeated 11 times. All the Los Angeles-based divisions of the Second
After our agreement with the CRF, its representatives developed District have had an opportunity to host at least one ACE oral arguan orientation curriculum to present to the students and to enlist the ment session. Almost 20 high schools have participated. From the percooperation of members of the Los Angeles bar to carry out com- spective of the justices, it seems clear that a major objective of the ACE
ponents of the proposed program. The curriculum and program program is being met. Students are able to grasp the role of the
procedures had to be field tested and assessed. When teachers and stu- courts in promoting the rule of law, providing fair resolutions of legal
dents who reviewed the proposed program gave it positive marks, we disputes, and administering justice in the criminal law arena. Students
also gain an awareness that they, too, may find a role in the legal syswere ready to put it into action.
The CRF and the court enlisted the Appellate Courts Committee tem and that this goal is not beyond their reach. Every session results
of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the California in questions about how the judge became a lawyer or a judge and why.
But it is very clear to me that the guts of the ACE program lies in
Academy of Appellate Lawyers to collaborate in the program. The
three groups recruited attorneys to act as the instructors for the pro- the mentoring provided by the volunteer attorneys who instruct and
gram to educate the students about the appellate process and the par- guide the students through a process with which they are generally
ticular case that they would follow. By fall of 2004, we were ready quite unfamiliar. Without this tremendous effort by the members of
to roll. All we lacked was a catchy acronym with which to title the the bar, the ACE program could not be maintained. There may come
program. We finally agreed on ACE—the Appellate Courts Experience. a day when, through the Internet or closed circuit broadcasting, the
Division Two (my division) was the guinea pig for the inaugural ACE program could be further broadened so that the court proceedings
run of the ACE program. We selected a case suitable to the stu- could be piped into schools that cannot make the trip to the court.
dents’ understanding and made the briefs available to the program But we are off to a wonderful start, thanks to the Constitutional Rights
attorneys who had volunteered to serve as instructors. We scheduled Foundation, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the
■
a special morning oral argument session for our courtroom in the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.
Ronald Reagan Building on October 24, 2004. In early October the
volunteer attorneys met with the students in their classrooms, gave Justice Roger Boren is administrative presiding justice of the California Court
them copies of the briefs, and prepared them for the oral arguments. of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
Ethics, Substance Abuse, Diversity: A Humorous Approach
ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, the Los Angeles County Bar Association,
together with the Law Practice Management Section and the Small and Solo
Practitioner Division, will host a program titled “Legal Ethics: A Funny Thing
Happened on the Way to the Disciplinary Hearing.” It’s often said that laughter
is the best medicine. Let lawyer, comedian, and humor columnist Sean Carter
show you how to add a daily dose of laughter to your practice. In this
presentation, he explores some of the more outrageous disciplinary cases that
come before state bar committees and how lawyers can avoid being part of
them. After explaining why legal ethics is not an oxymoron, Carter will cover
how laughter is the best defense against substance abuse. Additionally, Carter
will explore the issues involved in recruiting and retaining minority and women
employees and debunks some of the common myths surrounding the issue of
diversity. The event will take place at the LACBA Conference Center, 281 South
Figueroa Street, Downtown. Figueroa Courtyard reduced parking with LACBA
validation costs $10. On-site registration and the meal will begin at 4 P.M., with
the program continuing from 4:30 to 8:15 P.M. The registration code number is
010051. The prices below include the meal.
$150—CLE+PLUS members
$175—Barristers Section members
$195—Law Practice Management Section and Small and Solo Practitioner
Division members
$275—LACBA members
$450—all others
3.5 CLE hours, including 1 hour of ethics, 1 of elimination of bias,
1 of substance abuse, and half an hour of general CLE
Complex Court Symposium
ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, the
Litigation Section, together with the Labor
and Employment Law Section, the Los
Angeles and Orange County Chapters of
the Association of Business Trial Lawyers,
the Association of Southern California
Defense Counsel, and the Consumer
Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, will
present a program on all aspects of
complex court litigation. Many of the 19
judges from the complex courts in
California—including all seven Los
Angeles Complex Court judges—are
scheduled to present their views and take
questions. The program will cover
procedures for case control, class
certification, discovery, attaining and
approving settlements, and conduct at
trial. The program will take place at the
Omni Los Angeles Hotel, 251 South Olive
Street, Downtown. Valet parking costs
$12. On-site registration will begin at
Electronic Discovery Faux Pas
ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the
Small Firm and Sole Practitioner Division will host a webinar (an online seminar)
on the most common and critical faux pas that attorneys commit when handling
electronic data of clients. Solutions and tips on to how to avoid errors will be
provided. Please note that registration for this program closes on November 17.
Early registration is required because of the special nature of the program.
Registrants must provide an e-mail address so that the Association may send
information prior to the program. The webinar will take place from 11:30 A.M. to
12:30 P.M. The registration code number is 010156.
$85—LACBA members
$125—all others
1 CLE hour
2:30 P.M., with the program continuing
from 3 to 7:30 P.M. The registration code
number is 010073. The prices below
include the meal.
$160—Litigation and Real Property
Section members
$160—ABTL, CAALA, and SCDC members
$180—LACBA members
$225—all others
3.25 CLE hours
The Los Angeles County Bar Association is a State Bar of California MCLE approved provider. To register for the programs
listed on this page, please call the Member Service Department at (213) 896-6560 or visit the Association Web site at
http://calendar.lacba.org/where you will find a full listing of this month’s Association programs.
CITATION FORMATTING
MADE
ACCURATE,
EASY AND
QUICK.
NEW – West CiteAdvisor
See it now at west.thomson.com/westciteadvisor
For years customers have asked us to automate the troublesome, tedious chore of formatting legal citations and compiling
tables of authorities. Now we’ve developed a product that’s
equal to the demanding task: West CiteAdvisor™. On the Web
at citeadvisor.westlaw.com, it delivers letter-perfect briefs,
motions and other documents in a fraction of the time needed
for manual editing and proofreading.
© 2008 West, a Thomson business L-339601/4-08
Better results faster.