top of page


I. Select Bid Protest Matters

  • Our firm won a $30 million bid protest trial against the City of Los Angeles ("City") and the County of Los Angeles ("County"). Our client estimated the cumulative business value of the action to exceed 50 million dollars. The Trial Court issued a Writ of Mandate and Judgment directing the City and the County to cancel and vacate a contract which emanated from the contested bid. The Trial Court also awarded our client a full recovery of its litigation costs.

    By promptly conducting an effective discovery plan, this firm obtained an interim injunction against the City and County avoiding efforts by these entities to expedite the completion of illegal transactions. Such efforts included advanced payments for undelivered product and an acceleration of product delivery. Based on evidence this firm developed and presented at hearing, the Trial Court found that it had been misled by prior County representations and that our client had established the basis for extraordinary relief. The Trial Court, therefore, granted our client's application for the interim injunction

    This firm then uncovered evidence of pricing formulas, which the Trial Court found to be illegal, and performance evaluation practices, which the Trial Court found to be both "unfair" and a "misuse" of the established evaluation methodology. The Trial Court granted our client's request for a Writ of Mandate, independently, on each of these grounds.


  • Our firm successfully persuaded a public entity to reject all bids by demonstrating that the public entity created faulty specifications. The specifications improperly called for qualifications which were contrary to provisions of the Contractors State Licensing Law. These specifications had excluded our client from consideration notwithstanding that our client was entirely qualified to participate in the bid process.

  • This firm protested a bid on a major construction project for an international airport on the grounds that the winning bidder, a competitor entity, had misappropriated our client’s confidential information. The competitor entity had hired one of our client’s former employees who possessed the confidential information. This employee initially performed work on our client’s bid preparation team with access to its project analysis and bid plan. That employee was then assigned to formulate the competitor entity’s own bid plan and the competitor won the bid. Based on our protest, the public entity required a new round of bidding, in which this firm’s client prevailed.

  • Successfully enjoined a municipality and contractors engaged by it from commencing a major construction project. A court issued an injunction order based on evidence that the municipality had failed to comply with the competitive bidding “or equals” statute.

  • Our firm represented a global communications company when a public agency disclosed proprietary information to a competitor allowing the competitor a bidding advantage.  Ultimately, the awarded contract was withdrawn, and our client was awarded the contract during a subsequent contract bidding process.

II. Select Business and Construction Cases

  • This firm won an $8.4 million trial verdict in a construction defects / insurance bad faith action. Initially, a general contractor filed a lawsuit against our client for payment concerning the construction of a Church gymnasium and community center. This firm’s fact finding efforts provided our client with both a complete defense to the general contractor’s claim and a multi-million dollar counter-claim.

    By engaging industry experts and conducting site examinations, significant latent construction defects and pervasive, dangerous mold growth were discovered. Our firm then pursued claims on behalf of the Church, against the general contractor, its subcontractors and their respective insurers, resulting in a settlement recovery from the insurance carriers and subcontractors of $4,800,000. See featured case story


  • Our lawyers won a defense verdict against a multi-million dollar delay and defects claim, involving a life/fire/safety system installation on a 54-story office building project (Private Judge Trial).See featured case story

  • Our lawyers won an unanimous $1.5 million jury verdict in a fraud action, on a case in which our client’s original counsel had tendered a statutory settlement offer of $25,000. Defendant had rejected that $25,000 statutory offer. Significant punitive damages were awarded against the defendant for his wrongful and malicious conduct.See featured case story

  • This firm obtained a full settlement recovery of $750,000 from a major California Bank for negligent payment of fraudulent checks which had been wrongfully drafted on the business account of our client. The Bank failed to recognize and respond to classic fraud indicators inherent in these embezzlement transactions. In addition, a judgment against the employee embezzler for an amount of $499,000 was also obtained.See featured case story

  • Favorably resolved an industrial accident case involving the collapse of a scissor lift resulting in severe personal injuries to employees, including debilitating paraplegic injuries to one of the employees. Our client, a major overnight mail and freight shipping company, was the employer of the injured workers and owned, operated and supervised scissor lift activity. Our client obtained a complete liability release, while other case defendants fully paid a settlement sum.See featured case story

  • Received a $500,000 settlement payment for a racial discrimination case against a municipality. In addition, our clients remained employed and we obtained an agreement that unfavorable performance reviews pertaining to our clients would be reevaluated by specific supervisors not implicated in the racial discrimination activity. The municipality also agreed to provide elevated positions and job benefits based upon the merit of the amended performance evaluations.See featured case story

  • Established a complete defense to liability allegations for the failure of a smoke detector to activate in a student dormitory unit. The student occupant suffered burns throughout his body which penetrated to bone depth. Substantial grafting and reconstructive surgery over the course of several years was required to restore minimal functionality and appearance. Although our client’s smoke detector installed in the room did not activate, this firm proved our client to be without fault.See featured case story

  • Prevailed on appeal to overturn a judgment against our client. Prior to our engagement, plaintiffs sought a court order, dispossessing our clients from the Church in which they worshiped. This order was granted and became a judgment. This firm prevailed on appeal to overturn that judgment. Subsequently, a summary judgment in favor of our client was granted.See featured case story

  • Defended the manufacturer of a chemical fire suppression system which serviced a deep fryer appliance. The deep fryer appliance failed resulting in a catastrophic fire which destroyed an entire restaurant building. Although our client’s fire suppression system failed to activate, this firm developed evidence to prove that our client was without fault.See featured case story

  • Successfully defended against a lawsuit for alleged damages on a major co-generation installation project. Plaintiff sought multi-million dollar damages based on allegations that promised energy cost savings were unrealized. Our lawyers established that plaintiff had no actual savings deficit, based on operational factors such as the expansion of plaintiff’s structure by several trailer suites which had been connected to the structure’s grid after the savings program commenced. Expert analysis of plaintiff’s bills and a comparison of energy usage over time demonstrated that the promised cost savings were indeed realized

  • Defended successfully against several separate multi-million dollar lawsuits arising from energy and operational cost savings programs, each of which provided a specific guaranteed savings amount. Our lawyers have repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of such programs. We do so by analyzing variables such as structure expansions, tenant population, operational hours, load demand and rate increases, all of which can result in higher energy costs while promised net cost savings are achieved.

  • Established a complete defense to a multi-million dollar toxic mold claim arising from the construction of six separate apartment buildings. Plaintiff alleged that our client provided and installed defective equipment which leaked water throughout the enclosed envelop in all of these buildings. The water leakage was also alleged to have caused toxic mold throughout the apartment complex. The buildings did have severe water damage and were replete with mold. Our client’s product, however, was proven to be intact and a separate water source was found to have caused the plaintiff’s damages. Our client acknowledged responsibility for a few installation defects, unrelated to either the water damage or mold. A dismissal of our client was obtained for a very nominal settlement payment.

  • The firm successfully defended an air conditioner manufacturer that provided over 100 air conditioning units for hotel rooms at a major hotel franchise. The hotel became contaminated with mold, and the hotel owner alleged the air conditioning units were the source of the mold. The hotel owner claimed these units allowed water to intrude into the hotel structure causing mold to grow. This firm developed evidence that water intruded into the units because the hotel used decorative covers on the units, rather than the water resistant louvers required by the product literature. The decorative covers directed water into the hotel rooms. Additionally, the owner's installing contractor admitted during examination by this firm that the units were improperly installed. The units were designed to be installed on an angle, so any water intrusion would drain to the building exterior. The contractor, however, installed the units level, and water could not properly drain.  Our client’s units were found to be defect free.

  • A manufacturer of air conditioning systems was sued by a school district when a chiller ceased operating because of leaks in the copper tubing containing the refrigerant. This firm worked with expert witnesses and an European company that manufactured the unit's tubing to demonstrate that a rupture in that tubing was caused by the introduction of debris in the chiller unit during the school's routine maintenance work, and was not a result of any manufacturing defect. Our firm developed evidence that the water supply and return system feeding the unit had not been properly flushed prior to system start up. Thus, debris was likely present in the water supply flowing through the unit. Additionally, evidence was developed that strainers required by the manufacturer, to remove debris, had not been installed.

  • This firm successfully obtained injunction orders to prevent employees of our client from disgorging confidential company information, including trade secrets, customer lists and proprietary materials. The orders also prevented the former employees from recruiting other of our client’s employees.

  • Successfully defended against a multi-million dollar defective specification and delay claim. Our lawyers established evidence that design work provided by our client was appropriate. Claimant was persuaded to abandon this claim without litigation and without payment of any kind by our client.

  • Defended successfully against multi-million dollar claims asserted by a major Southern California hospital against our client for the replacement of allegedly defective industrial equipment, lost profits and utility expense impacts.

  • Our lawyers won a substantial jury trial verdict in a defective roofing case involving leakage and severe water damage to the structure, flooring and property contained within. We represented the owner and demonstrated that the roofing design and installation methods were inadequate.

  • Achieved a successful summary judgment for a client in defense of a “sick building” case involving alleged lung damage and other injuries.

  • Successfully defended an international freight shipping company against claims of negligence, relating to customer allegations of excessive tariff charges.

  • Defended client against OSHA citations for unsafe construction site conditions. Our client prevailed at the hearing based on the evidence entered before the hearing judge. Significant OSHA evidence was excluded, leading to a defense judgment in favor of our client.

  • M&A is outside counsel for the City of Torrance on all construction matters.  In addition, M&A represented the City in claims asserted after a fire damaged personal property stored at its airport.  M&A has also defended the City on defect claims, claims for additional payment on construction projects, and Labor Board actions involving contractors and subcontractors.  Our firm has also negotiated project completion agreements for the City, with sureties, after contractors failed to perform contract work.

  • Obtained favorable negotiated resolutions for a corporate business client on several Department of Labor Standards Enforcement cases alleging breach of prevailing wage laws.

  • Successfully defended several separate actions for the allegedly defective installation of life/fire/safety system equipment.

  • Defended many major construction defect cases and achieved resolution without any significant payments by our clientele to claimants, either in settlement or through trial.

  • M&A has represented national fire alarm and security companies in litigation matters involving alleged construction defects, delays to project completion, and personal injury claims.

  • Obtained dismissal of multi-million dollar claim by California Franchise Tax Board against a corporation, without any payment by our client.

III. Labor and Employment Matters

  • Obtained a million dollar settlement for client employee against former employer based on claims for failure to pay earned wages, unlawful business practices, conversion and fraud. Our firm developed evidence that the employee's former employer had wrongfully labeled employee's commissions as a "bonus" to withhold payment, and further, had wrongfully undervalued and fraudulently concealed the true value of employee's ownership interest in company, to deprive employee of true value. Successfully defended employee against the former employer's cross-claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

  • Successfully defended a music industry business from a disability discrimination complaint. Client’s manager fired employee who claimed to have been injured at work. Manager expressly stated in a written letter to employee that the termination was based on the employee’s work place disability.   The employee sued our client based on a disability discrimination claim. Extensive discovery and follow-up investigation produced evidence that the worker had been injured outside of the work place, and had staged a false injury incident at work in order to seek workers’ compensation benefits.  Our firm prevailed in the legal action.

  • A terminated employee brought an action against a company, alleging violations of whistleblower statutes.  Our firm developed evidence that the employee’s complaint was false and fraudulent, and the company was justified in terminating employee for making false allegations.  During the course of the lawsuit, our firm also developed evidence that the plaintiff had routinely disclosed confidential information to unauthorized persons, creating a successful after-acquired evidence defense.

  • Successfully defended an unemployment claim and a sexual harassment and discrimination claim brought by an employee whose job was eliminated in a company restructuring event.  The employee possessed substantial evidence of demeaning and discriminatory sexual preference comments texted about him among supervisors. Our firm was able to demonstrate that his termination was, however, entirely unrelated to the work place bias.  

  • Enabled corporate client to invoke trade secret protections against departing employee who had wiped clean all information from his company computer and the company phone, and maintained the only existing copy of proprietary materials.  Our firm obtained an agreement from the new employer to: (1) return all of the proprietary information, (2) ensure against any duplication of the proprietary materials, and (3) ensure that former employee would not approach client customers for a one-year period.

  • A client hired a new manager from a competitor company.  The new manager had signed a non-solicitation clause at his former employment.  This clause covered the non-solicitation of both customers and employees of the former employer.  The new manager, a member of the client’s management team, violated this agreement by soliciting and hiring several of the former employer’s employees.  Former employer sued manager and client alleging they had conspired to illegally solicit members of his work force. At trial, our firm defeated the former employer’s claims, persuading the court that such a contractual anti-solicitation provision violated both California law and public policy, and could not be enforced.


  • Former employee alleged a right to unemployment benefits and damages, asserting that he had been injured at work and terminated because of the work place injury.  Our firm developed evidence that this former employee: (1) had been fully compensated for the same work injury at a prior time, (2) had not worked for the client for years after the actual injury occurred, and (3) had fabricated evidence in an effort to establish later injury and termination dates.

IV. Select Security Services Matters

  • This firm successfully defended a major alarm company from claims brought by its customer after a burglary occurred at the customer’s store. The customer alleged claims of fraud and conversion in an effort to avoid enforcement of the security services contract, which contained liability disclaimers and limitations on liability. The customer also alleged licensing violations in an effort to invalidate the contract. This firm succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of the fraud and conversion claims through dispositive motions. The case settled shortly before trial, after plaintiff’s representative provided testimony contradicting his own prior sworn declaration during videotaped depositions, and with motions in limine pending that may well have defeated plaintiff’s remaining claims.

  • A national security company was threatened with legal action when the insurer for client’s customer refused to pay a multi-million dollar damage claim resulting from burglary at customer’s commercial property. Insurer contended that customer failed to procure a sufficient security system or to properly engage the system. This firm worked with counsel for the customer to demonstrate that security system was sufficient, was properly engaged, and provided appropriate signals, but that the burglary was completed before a police response could have prevented the loss. The customer received a full recovery from its insurer, and legal action against this firm’s client was entirely avoided.

  • After an employee accident, OSHA reached preliminary findings against our client for three “serious violations” of OSHA standards, which the client would be required to disclose on any public work bids, and for many private projects bids. In response to the initial notice of potential violations from OSHA, the client’s personnel provided OSHA with fabricated records. Our firm lawyers negotiated with OSHA to accept correct records with impunity, and then worked with OSHA to understand unique facts about how the accident was caused. Based on our industry research and a forthcoming approach with OSHA, the preliminary findings were vacated and OSHA found that no serious violations had occurred.

  • A major national contractor changed its corporate format, requiring it to obtain a new license from the California State Contractor’s License Board (the “Board”). The Board originally rejected the new corporate format, and the client could not make the requested changes before its license would lapse. This firm worked with counsel for the Board to obtain a thirty day extension of the client’s license to allow for the required changes to occur. Our client was able to remain operating with no disruption while all compliance issues with the Board were fully resolved.

  • The firm’s client, a national alarm company, split into two entities, business and consumer. The consumer entity became a separate, newly formed company. Because of timing issues with the California State Contractors Licensing Board, the consumer entity would have been operating as an unlicensed entity until state mandated background checks were completed. This firm worked with state agencies to gain approval pending background checks, and to obtain a valid license the day before the new company began operations.

  • This firm advised a security contractor commencing business in California to identify the licenses necessary to comply with all aspects of its planned work and service, with both the California State Contractors License Board and the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (the “BSIS”). This firm provided advice on necessary sub-specialty licenses. In addition, this firm modified the client’s standard contract to include language mandated by the Board, BSIS and pertinent statutes.

bottom of page