Experience

California Supreme Court Amicus Brief Opposing Proposition 8

Farella filed an amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of advocacy groups opposing Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage. Farella's amicus brief focuses on the negative and stigmatic impact the measure has on the current and future children of same-sex parents. The groups represented by Farella on the brief include: The Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, Family Equality Council; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Therapists Association; the Human Rights Campaign; The Human Rights Campaign Foundation; Kids in Common; Legal Services for Children; the National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Youth Law; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation; PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian and Gays Inc.) and the San Francisco Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA).

Omstead v. Dell

We defended Dell in federal court consumer class action alleging UCL, FAL, CLRA, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and common law claims arising from allegedly fraudulent marketing and advertising of notebook computers. We obtained early order compelling enforcement of class-waiver arbitration clause in consumer adhesion contracts and then dismissal for lack of prosecution. The matter has settled, pending court approval of the settlement agreement.

Dajani v. Dell

We defended Dell Inc. in federal court consumer class action alleging violations of various California and Texas consumer protection statutes and common law claims arising from alleged false advertising and misrepresentations concerning ink level warnings in inkjet printers. We obtained dismissal of all claims at the pleading stage. 

McGinnis v. Dorson

Represented plaintiff buyer in real estate litigation dispute seeking specific performance of multi-million dollar real estate contract. Achieved a beneficial settlement following a favorable order on defendant's motion for Summary Judgment.

Hang Loose Rum v. Frank-Lin Distributors

Represented start-up alcoholic beverage company in lawsuit against co-manufacturing facility, on claim alleging negligent quality control caused product launch to fail. Case settled for $1.1 million on second day of trial.

BART v. GE Transportation Systems

We represented GE in a $500 million federal court litigation in the Northern District of California involving the development of an experimental train control technology for BART. The case successfully settled after a partial summary judgment motion knocked out BART’s breach of contract claim based on the exclusive remedy provision of the contract.

Brazil v. Dell Inc.

We defended Dell in a federal court consumer class action alleging false advertising and misrepresentations concerning product discounts and asserting claims for alleged violations of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq., intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.

Grunfeld v Taldan Investment Co.

Represented Ernie Grunfeld (current President of Basketball Operations for the Washington Wizards and former NBA star) in a two week trial before U.S. District Court Judge Lowell Jensen to successfully prosecute claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against Taldan Investment Company arising from failed real estate investments.  (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)

Gump v Wells Fargo Bank (San Francisco Superior Court)

Defended Wells Fargo Bank in a four month trial against multi-million dollar claims for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial involved a challenge to the bank's role as trustee for the Gump trust, whose primary assets were the Gump's department store in San Francisco, in addition to various real estate holdings and other assets. (San Francisco Superior Court)

MPS Acquisition, Inc. v Micro Power Systems, Inc., et al.

Defended Micro Power Systems, Inc. in a multi-million dollar suit for breach of contract, fraud and conspiracy resulting from failed acquisition negotiations.  Obtained judgment for the defendant, and then acted as lead counsel in a trial in Santa Clara Superior Court before the Honorable Conrad Rushing to successfully establish alter-ego liability against the principals of MPS Acquisition, Inc. to enforce recovery on cross-complaint. Obtained a verdict in favor of plaintiffs on all issues, which was affirmed on appeal.

Securities Fraud

Currently representing targets and witnesses in various securities fraud investigations and trials.

  • Representing targets and witnesses in various securities fraud investigations directed by SEC and U.S. Attorneys' Offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.
  • Tried complex criminal securities fraud cases to jury verdicts in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • Resolved federal criminal and SEC cases alleging revenue recognition fraud against former vice president of international sales of a publicly traded company.
  • Resolved federal criminal insider-trading cases against high-tech engineer and attorney, including successful motions for downward departure at sentencing and probation in both cases.
  • Defended former CFO in SEC investigation of revenue recognition and accounting fraud. No enforcement proceedings were filed.
  • Represented controller of publicly traded company in parallel civil actions and SEC/DOJ investigations arising from securities fraud actions stemming from merger of pharmaceutical companies.
  • Represented general counsel of public company in SEC investigation of possible SOX "reporting up" violation.
  • Represented current and former officers and directors in state and federal derivative and shareholder litigation arising from alleged options backdating.
  • Represented former outside director in state and federal cases brought by company special litigation committee against former management, board members, and others in connection with allegations of backdated stock options.
  • Represented special committee of public national bank in investigation of bank's compliance with anti-money laundering statutes and related regulations.
  • Representing CFO in DOJ prosecution and parallel SEC case relating to alleged backdating of stock option exercises and related tax evasion counts.
  • Defending the founder and former CEO of public software company in connection with an SEC enforcement case pending in the Northern District of California (San Jose) alleging revenue recognition violations.

Technology Licensing Agreement Arbitrations

Represented Novartis in a series of arbitrations arising out of technology licensing agreements.

Titeflex

Serve as national coordinating counsel for products liability litigation relating to gas delivery system, and products liability counseling relating to Prop. 65.

Visa v. Maritz

Represented Visa in connection with claims against Maritz arising out of Maritz's attempt to develop and deploy a points based rewards program for Visa and its members.

AGF Reinsurance et al. v. Spar Aerospace LTD

In an action testing the boundaries of industry‑standard contracts, we defended the Canadian manufacturer of a communication satellite that malfunctioned after launch in an action brought by an international consortium of insurance companies that underwrote launch insurance for the mission.

Boldryev v. Frankel

We represented the original developer of WinAmp, the industry leading MP3 player, involving claims of fraud, copyright infringement, and partnership accounting by an alleged co-developer, following the sale of the company to AOL.  The case was successfully resolved.

Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines Corp.

With the American Civil Liberties Union, we are representing on a pro bono basis an American citizen of Bangladeshi descent, who was denied permission to board a Northwest Airlines flight shortly after 9/11, even after airport security agents and the FBI cleared the plaintiff to fly.  The case, filed in Federal court, alleges discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry and/or national origin.

City of San Jose v. Paine Webber, Jackson Curtis, Inc., et al.

Defended William E. Pollack & Company in trial against claims by the City of San Jose arising from losses in excess of $70 million for alleged securities fraud and churning of City funds invested in reverse repurchase bond transactions.  (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)

Cox Communications

We have advised Cox Communications and its Bay Area television broadcast stations KTVU and KICU on matters pertaining both to business issues such as relationships with on-air talent and advertisers and to First Amendment issues such as the content of news broadcasts and responses to subpoenas and other inquiries directed to news reporters.  For example, the firm represented a KTVU/Fox reporter in motions to obtain access to wiretaps of his conversations with murder defendant Scott Peterson.

Deluxe Data v. Visa International, et al.

In this case, perhaps the first in the country tried under the “inevitable disclosure” trade secrets doctrine, the firm represented Visa, its data processing system, and seven individuals who were sued for having left the plaintiff en masse, allegedly with knowledge of source code and “know-how” related to the functionality in ATM machines worldwide.  The case was tried in state court in Milwaukee for approximately two weeks, and our clients prevailed on every count.  The decision in favor of our clients was affirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Dumas et al. v. The Upper Deck Company et al.

Defended an unfair competition class action brought in federal court in San Diego against a distributor of sports trading cards arising from its marketing and advertising practices.

Financial Security Assurance Antitrust Actions

Representing Financial Security Assurance Inc. ("FSA") in a series of cases brought by various municipal bond issuers alleging that FSA and a number of other municipal bond insurer defendants illegally agreed and conspired to artificially inflate the prices of municipal bond insurance in violation of the antitrust laws.  Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al.; City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al.; and City of Sacramento v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al.

Flat Panel Antitrust Litigation

We represent Dell Inc. in a pending federal multidistrict antitrust litigation. Dell has accused several Japanese and South Korean LCD panel manufacturers of colluding to fix the world-wide prices of LCD screens. The case is scheduled for trial in the Fall of 2012.

Hych et al. v. CTS

We represented a telecommunications firm sued in San Diego Superior Court in a consumer unfair practices action alleging “slamming” of telephone customers who were signed up for service contracts without their authorization. We obtained a defense judgment on all claims following trial in San Diego.

Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. California Hotel Acquisition Corporation, et al.

Represented Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation and Bass Hotels and Resorts in various actions pending in federal and state courts in Los Angeles as well as the Ninth Circuit, arising out of the termination of Inter-Continental's management agreement for the Hotel Inter-Continental Los Angeles.  The case involved breach of contract, tort and unfair competition claims.  We subsequently assisted Inter-Continental Hotels in transitioning management of the hotel to Omni Hotels.

Kristensen et al. v. Great Spring Waters of America, et al.

We defended two consumer class actions against a manufacturer of nationally known bottled water products alleging consumer fraud arising from its labeling and sale of spring water products.  The claims were successfully resolved and the matter dismissed.

Macromedia v. Ashford.com

Represented Macromedia in connection with an action against Ashford.com for claims arising from a software license and consulting agreement relating to Macromedia’s LikeMinds software.  We succeeded in avoiding extensive discovery and obtaining a prompt and favorable settlement for our client. 

Nut Tree

We represented one of three branches of the multi-generational family partnership that owned and operated, among other things, the Nut Tree restaurant and retail complex in Vacaville in partnership dissolution and fiduciary duty litigation.  Through the litigation, we successfully ended years of money losing operations and were able to extricate our clients from the failing partnership at full fair market value levels, despite provisions in the partnership agreement precluding such actions and requiring a buyout at much lower book value prices.

Round Table Franchise Corporation

We have represented Round Table Franchise Corporation for over fifteen years on a wide variety of litigation matters, including franchisee disputes (contract issues, termination issues, and trademark claims),   lease disputes, employment claims, contract disputes and ADA compliance claims.

S.Com v InServe

Successful defended venture capital fund at trial against various alter ego theories seeking to establish liability of investment entity.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Wire Fraud Victims Have New Reporting Factors After Ciminelli

Originally published by  Bloomberg Law . Courts around the country have seen an influx of challenges to indictments and convictions since the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in  Ciminelli v. United States  last May...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
News

Farella Wins Complete Defense Ruling at Trial for Smart Meter Technology Company

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel secured a complete defense victory for a smart meter technology company following a two-week bench trial in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California...

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
News

Sarah Good Honored Among Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business

Read More
Publication

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. , Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and...

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More