Representative Cases


HOME » CASES & PUBLICATIONS » Representative Cases

Civil Litigation

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

Bank v. FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Borrower

Case Overview

Bank sued the FREEMAN FIRM's client, Borrower, for alleged breach of a $1 million promissory note.  Bank obtained an ex parte writ of attachment on Borrower's assets.  At a subsequent hearing, the FREEMAN FIRM argued the Bank's attachment was improper.  The trial court agreed, discharging Bank's attachment.  On behalf of Borrower, the FREEMAN FIRM filed a cross-complaint against Bank for wrongful attachment.  Bank settled the case and forgave Borrower's $1 million promissory note.

FREEMAN FIRM's Clients: Investors v. Farm Manager

Case Overview

The FREEMAN FIRM's clients, Investors, sued Farm Manager for breach of farm management contracts, embezzlement, and fraud regarding nine separate growing ventures.  Farm Manager cross-complained in Investors' actions and filed his own complaints against Investors.  The FREEMAN FIRM successfully obtained  dismissal of all Farm Manager's cross-complaints and obtained a multi-million dollar judgment against Farm Manager in all actions filed by Investors.

Partner A v. FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Partner B

Case Overview

Partner A and Partner B formed a partnership which owned a professional sports team.  After sale of the team, Partner A filed suit against the FREEMAN FIRM's client, Partner B, for fraud and requested an accounting of partnership funds.  The FREEMAN FIRM filed a demurrer to Partner A's complaint.  The trial court granted the FREEMAN FIRM's demurrer and dismissed Partner A's complaint.  When Partner A appealed, the FREEMAN FIRM successfully defended Partner B before the Third District Court of Appeal, which upheld the trial court's dismissal.   



Eminent Domain/Condemnation Cases

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Governmental Agency v. Property Owner

Case Overview

The FREEMAN FIRM's client, Governmental Agency, sought to acquire a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement necessary for a sewer project.  Property Owner demanded over $1.2 million for the property interests, claiming that amount represented the fair market value of the property and compensation for loss in value the remaining land due to the taking.  THE FREEMAN FIRM believed the Governmental Agency's lower appraised value was fair compensation and prepared for trial.  On the eve of trial, the FREEMAN FIRM settled the case for less than half the amount Property Owner demanded.     

Governmental Agency v. FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Dairy Farmers

Case Overview

Governmental Agency sought to take land owned by the FREEMAN FIRM's client, Dairy Farmers, for a highway project.  The issue at trial was the value of the land being taken.  Governmental Agency valued a portion of the land at less than $500, claiming an existing easement caused a decrease in the value of the property.  The FREEMAN FIRM stood firm on our final offer.  At trial, the jury awarded the FREEMAN FIRM's client, Dairy Farmers, an amount which not only exceed our final offer by $50,000, but was $160,000 higher than Governmental Agency's final offer.      



Real Estate and Commercial Transactions

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

Property Purchasers v. FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Seller/Developer

Case Overview

Property Purchasers sued the FREEMAN FIRM's client, Seller/Developer, for fraud, claiming $10 million in damages due to alleged structural damages to an apartment complex.  Early in the litigation, the FREEMAN FIRM presented a settlement offer of $250,000.  Property Purchasers wanted to negotiate, but the FREEMAN FIRM stood firm.  The FREEMAN FIRM's attorneys skillfully defended Seller/Developer, and Property Purchasers recovered nothing.



Business Entity Formation and Organization; Financing and Acquisitions

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

Former Employee v. FREEMAN FIRM's Clients: Individual and Business

Case Overview

Individual had his own Company in which Employee was a salesman.  After many years, Individual phased out his Company and became a consultant for an upstart Business.  Upstart Business hired Employee as plant manager.  After a series of work-related incidents, Business relieved Employee of his supervisory duties.  Dissatisfied with the demotion, Employee quit.  Four months later, following termination from a new job, Employee sued Business for wrongful termination and interference with future employment relationships; Employee also sued Individual, claiming he was a partner in Individual's Company.  After months of contentious litigation, The FREEMAN FIRM settled the matter for a fraction of Employee's demand and compelled Business's insurance company to pay a large share of the settlement amount.

Shareholder v. FREEMAN FIRM's Clients: Officers and Directors of Corporation

Case Overview

Shareholder filed a derivative action, alleging the decisions of Corporation's Officers and Directors were not made in the best interests of the Corporation.  The Board of Directors appointed a disinterested Special Litigation Committee to determine whether to pursue Shareholder's claims.  Representing Corporation's Officers and Directors, The FREEMAN FIRM submitted a brief to the Special Litigation Committee arguing that the decisions of the Officers and Directors fell squarely within the protection of the California Business Judgment Rule.  Shareholder quickly settled before the Special Litigation Committee issued its decision.



Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Injured Party v. Driver of Truck

Case Overview

The FREEMAN FIRM's client, Injured Party, was the passenger in an automobile hit by Driver's truck.  Upon collision, Injured Party was ejected from the automobile and suffered lacerations to his face, neck and chest, a broken arm, and lacerations to his spleen, causing intra-abdominal hemorrhaging.  As a result, Injured Party's spleen had to be removed.  The FREEMAN FIRM settled our client's personal injury matter for over half a million dollars.

FREEMAN FIRM's Clients: Heirs of Injured Party v. Doctor and Doctor's Employer

Case Overview

Injured Party underwent surgery to correct an abdominal aneurysm at Doctor's medical facility Employer.  However, Doctor performed a different surgery, resulting in Injured Party suffering permanent paraplegia and a compressed lung; Injured Party also suffered recurring infections due to Doctor's use of a partially infected mesh graft.  The FREEMAN FIRM filed a medical malpractice action against Doctor and Doctor's Employer and negotiated an advantageous settlement for the Heirs of Injured Party; settlement also met Heirs' objective of avoiding the lengthy and protracted litigation process.



Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

Insurance Company  v. FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Business

Case Overview

The FREEMAN FIRM's client had a business policy with Insurance Company.  For three years, Business paid the premium charged by Insurance Company.  After a policy review, Insurance Company claimed Business owed over half a million dollars, alleging the policy provided for an adjustment of the final premium.  The FREEMAN FIRM filed a motion to dismiss Insurance Company's complaint to collect the unpaid premiums.  The trial court agreed with the FREEMAN FIRM's argument that Insurance Company had a duty to deal fairly and honestly with Business and dismissed the complaint and entered judgment in favor of Business.  Insurance Company's appeal was unsuccessful.  The FREEMAN FIRM's client, Businesss, paid nothing beyond the premiums originally paid.

Insurance Company v. FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Manufacturer

Case Overview

The FREEMAN FIRM's client, Manufacturer, was sued by a purchaser of their product.  Under Manufacturer's insurance policies, Insurance Company had a duty to provide legal representation in that action.  However, Insurance Company claimed it was investigating its duty to defend while the litigation proceeded.  Leaving Manufacturer no alternative, Manufacturer hired the FREEMAN FIRM to defend it in the action filed by the purchaser.  Although Insurance Company paid the FREEMAN FIRM's legal fees until Insurance Company finally undertook Manufacturer's representation, Insurance Company later sued Manufacturer for reimbursement.  The FREEMAN FIRM represented Manufacturer in the collection action filed by Insurance Company.  The FREEMAN FIRM stood firm on its position that Insurance Company had a duty under its insuance policies to defend Manufacturer and therefore was not entitled to any reimbursement.  The trial court agreed, and Manufacturer paid nothing to Insurance Company.



Estate Planning

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

[Under Construction]


Appellate Advocacy

CASES MENU BAR

Collapse all | Expand all

FREEMAN FIRM's Client: Governmental Agency v. Property Owners

Case Overview

The FREEMAN FIRM represented Governmental Agency in an action to condemn property for use in a highway project.  Property Owners claimed their property was worth a substantial amount more than Governmental Agency's appraisal based on a theory that Governmental Agency's actions prior to the condemnation had caused their property to be worth less.  Over the objection of the FREEMAN FIRM's attorneys, the trial court permitted the jury to hear Property Owners' theory and supporting evidence, and the jury returned a verdict adopting Property Owners' valuation.  The FREEMAN FIRM appealed, and the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision to allow the jury to hear evidence of any precondemnation conduct.  (See 100 Cal.App.4th 887.)   



If you have a question about our firm or want to schedule a consultation with an attorney, please call 209. 474.1818 or fill out our contact form so we may provide additional assistance.

Freeman, D'Aiuto, Pierce, Gurev, Keeling & Wolf 

1818 GRAND CANAL BOULEVARD . SUITE 4 . STOCKTON . CALIFORNIA 95207

Tel   209.474.1818   /   Fax   209.474.1245   /   info@freemanfirm.com

Horizontal Rule