Sidran Law Corp
Trial Lawyers For Business

Results

Delivering Results for our Clients

Representative Trial Verdicts and Arbitration Awards

2018: Nelson v. Doe BMW Dealer: In this case Plaintiff purchased a used BMW M6 with a lemon law buy-back branded title which was fully disclosed to him. Dissatisfied with characteristics of the M6 which are harsher than lower performance models, Plaintiff stopped payment on his down payment check and demanded that the dealer repurchase the vehicle based on allegations of fraud and breach of warranty. The case proceeded to binding arbitration at JAMS with Judge Herlihy presiding. After a one-day arbitration hearing the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client on Plaintiff’s claim in addition to awarding the dealer the amount of the dishonored down payment check plus prejudgment interest against the Plaintiff.

2018; Atebar v. Doe Toyota Dealer: In this case Plaintiff claimed he was defrauded in connection with his lease of a new Toyota Camry. He asserted claims under the Vehicle Leasing Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act alleging a violation of the single document rule. After a one-day binding arbitration at JAMS, Michael Ornstil presiding as arbitrator, an arbitration award was entered in favor of our client and against the Plaintiff.

2016: Hill v. Doe Solar Company: In this consumer fraud case, Plaintiff claimed that his anticipated energy savings was misrepresented to him by Defendant, and that he was entitled to rescind his solar energy contract. After a one-day binding arbitration, Judge Robert Baines presiding, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client and against the Plaintiff.

2016:  Henry v. Davis:  In this case, Plaintiff claimed he was assaulted and battered by a 7-Eleven Franchisee who ejected him from the store.  Defendant claimed that he used reasonable force in defense of himself and others by punching Plaintiff in the face after Plaintiff threw hot coffee on him.  After a one-day jury trial, the jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client, the 7-Eleven Franchisee.

2015:  Benson v. Fairfield Imports:  In this case Plaintiff claimed he was defrauded by Defendant when he bought three used cars.  Plaintiff claimed the vehicles had been prior rentals and that such vehicle history was not disclosed to him by Defendant as required by law.  After a one day binding arbitration at AAA, an award in favor of Defendant was entered.

2015:  Fernandez v. Doe Nissan Dealer:  In this case Plaintiff claimed she was defrauded by Defendant when she bought a used Nissan Altima which had been involved in a prior collision that caused unibody damage which had been inadequately repaired.  Plaintiff claimed that Defendant had a duty to disclose the prior collision damage and repairs, and failed to do so in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.  After a one-day binding arbitration at JAMS, Judge Collins presiding, an arbitration award in favor of Defendant was entered.

2014:  David v. Doe VW Dealer:  In this case Plaintiff claimed he was defrauded by Defendant when he bought a used Infiniti G37 Coupe in which the engine failed after 12,000 miles due to oil sludge from lack of maintenance that occurred long before Defendant ever acquired the car.  Plaintiff sued under ASFA, CLRA and Song-Beverly, as well for negligent misrepresentation.  After a seven-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hayashi presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict for our client

2014:  NLV v. RJS & Associates, Inc.:  In this construction contract dispute, Plaintiff claimed it was over-charged by Defendant on a $2.5 million contract to provide structural concrete for a 5-story condominium project.  After a five-day bench trial in the San Mateo County Superior Court, Judge Buchwald presiding, our client received a defense verdict and was awarded $185,000 in attorney’s fees and costs against Plaintiff as the prevailing party under the contract containing an attorney fee provision.

2014:  Nekrawesh v. Arno:  In this rear-end collision case in which our client admitted negligence but denied causing any injury, Plaintiff claimed he suffered ruptured cervical and lumbar disks that would require surgery and permanently disabled him from his usual occupation as a taxi driver.  After a five-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Colwell presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff. 

2012: Jordan v. Doe Toyota Dealer:  In this case Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant auto dealer participated in identity theft committed by Plaintiff's estranged wife in the course of her purchase of a vehicle from Defendant in which Plaintiff's signature was forged.  After a three-day bench trial in the Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Kingsley presiding, the court found in favor of our client and rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff. 

2012 Jarvis v. Harvey & Madding, Inc.:  In this case Plaintiff claimed that Defendant auto dealer wrongfully repossessed his vehicle after financing for his purchase fell through.  Defendant contended that it had the lawful right to repossess the vehicle under the subject contract and that it timely sent notice of rescission of the contract to Plaintiff.  After a four-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Bereola presiding, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff.  Defendant was thereafter awarded $65,000 in attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party insofar as this action had been brought under the Automobile Sales Finance Act.

2012 Cabrera v. Doe Toyota Dealer:  In this case Plaintiff claimed that Defendant auto dealer wrongfully repossessed her vehicle after financing for her purchase fell through.  Defendant contended that it had the lawful right to repossess the vehicle under the subject contract and that it timely sent notice of rescission of the contract to Plaintiff.  After a  four-day jury trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, Judge Mayhew presiding, the jury reached a verdict in favor of our client and rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client and against Plaintiff. 

2011 DFEH v. Hesse Corporation:  In this employment discrimination lawsuit, the State of California Department of Fair Employment And Housing sued our client for illegal discrimination on account of pregnancy in connection with its termination of the employment of Linda Alvarez.  The Defendant denied any discriminatory intent and contended that it terminated Ms. Alvarez for falsification of her application for coverage under Defendant's group health insurance policy insofar as she denied she was pregnant on the insurance application and gave birth the following day. Defendant also  contended that the claim was barred by after-acquired evidence that Ms. Alvarez falsified  her insurance application in other particulars and also lied on her employment application and in her job interview with Defendant.  After a four-day jury trial in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered a  judgment of nonsuit in favor of our client and against Plaintiff

2011 Cheroti v. Doe Honda Dealer:  In this dispute over the sale of two new Honda vehicles, Plaintiff refused to return the vehicles he purchased after the dealer cancelled the contracts due to its inability to finance the transactions.  Plaintiff claimed that Defendant did not timely cancel the contracts in compliance with the contract  and  converted the vehicles by repossessing them. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law in connection with the transactions. After a two phase bifurcated seven-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Grillo presiding, the  jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client.

2011 Hinojosa v. Quality Towing:  In this dispute over the towing and sale at auction of motorhome, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant illegally towed their vehicle and refused to grant them access to retrieve their personal belongings prior to selling the motorhome at auction and disposing of the contents.  Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to provide the required proof of ownership, or permission from the registered owner, required by law to gain access the motorhome since the vehicle was registered to a third party.  After a three-day jury trial in the Clark County District Court, Judge Walsh presiding, the court entered a judgment of nonsuit in favor of our client and against Plaintiffs.

2010 Flenner v. Doe Chevrolet Dealer.  In this dispute over the sale of a used Ford F350 turbodiesel truck, Plaintiffs claimed that the our client defrauded them by failing to disclose the prior vehicle warranty repair history at the time of sale.  After Plaintiffs failed to prove a causal connection between pre-sale warranty repairs and any problems with the vehicle after the sale, and after Plaintiffs failed to establish that the vehicle was worth less than they paid for it at the time of sale on account of any prior warranty repairs, Defendant's motion for nonsuit on the fraud claims that were tried to the jury was granted on the third day of trial in the Humboldt County Superior Court, Judge Brown presiding: Thereafter, the court found in favor of our client and against Plaintiffs on the nonjury issues tried to the court under Automobile Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law.  

2010 Collins v. Doe BMW Dealer.  In this dispute over the sale of a used BMW 528i, Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant auto dealer violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act insofar as it charged a California new tire recycling fee on used tires that were on the vehicle at the time of sale.  Plaintiffs sought restitution, injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs.  We argued that Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by Defendant's refund of the tire fee overcharge, and that the overcharge did not violate any consumer protection statutes. After a four-day bench trial in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered judgment for Defendant, and awarded our client its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending this lawsuit.  

2010 Long v. Quality Towing.  In this civil rights lawsuit Plaintiff claimed that Defendant violated 42 USC section 1983 by towing his vehicle and selling it at auction in derogation of his civil rights under the 1st, 4th 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Plaintiff sought in excess of $70,000 in economic damages as well as general and punitive damages. Defendant contended the Plaintiff could not establish that he held valid title to the subject vehicle and that Defendant did not act under color of state law in the disposition of that vehicle. After a one-day jury trial in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Chief Judge Roger Hunt presiding, the court granted our client's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

2008 Guideone Insurance v. Kilgore.  In this low impact rear end auto collision, Plaintiff paid out $153,000 in worker's compensation benefits to the driver of the vehicle that was struck from behind by our client.  That driver had previously undergone a low back lumbar fusion, and Plaintiff claimed he required further low back surgery as a result of the subject collision. After a four-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Baranco presiding, the jury entered a defense verdict.  Because Defendant received more favorable verdict than its CCP sec. 998 offer for a waiver of costs made at the inception of the lawsuit, Mr. Sidran recovered an award of over $20,000 in expert witness fees and costs for our client.

2007  Moretti v. Werner Ladder Company.  In this products liability case, Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the rope used to raise his new 40' extension ladder broke, causing the ladder extension to fall and strike his right hand.  Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the rope failure he could no longer run his roofing business, would have to be retrained in another field, and would have to undergo multiple hand and wrist surgeries, including a fusion of four bones in his hand resulting in 50% loss of range of motion.  We represented the rope manufacturer against allegations that the rope failed due to lack of adequate UV inhibitor resulting in premature UV deterioration causing failure of the rope.  Plaintiff asked the jury to award over $1 million in economic and noneconomic damages. Defendant's last offer prior to trial was $235,000. Result: After a four day jury trial in the Douglas County District Court in Minden, NV, Judge Gibson presiding, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of our client.

2005  Bobbitt v. Berry-Hinckley Industries:  In this premises liability case involving a slip and fall on ice at a gas station convenience store in Carson City, NV, We represented the property owner against Plaintiff's claim for damages, including the allegation that Plaintiff will require multiple spine surgeries as a result of the accident.  Plaintiff's last settlement demand prior to trial was $250,000. Defendant served an offer of judgment prior to trial for $75,000.  Result:  After three days of trial in the Carson City District Court in Carson City, NV, Judge Maddox presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict.  Defendant was awarded $19,090 in attorney's fees and costs against Plaintiff as a result of beating our offer of judgment at trial.

2004  Hardscape Paving v. Weeger Bros., Inc.:  In this case involving collection of a disputed balance owed by the general contractor to our client the concrete subcontractor on a construction contract, Mr. Sidran represented the subcontractor in its collection effort at trial in the Orange County Superior Court, Judge Watson presiding. Plaintiff sought an award of $64,000.  Result: After three days of trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of our client for the full amount sought under the subcontract plus attorney's fees, costs and interest for a total judgment of over $100,000. Judgment affirmed on appeal.

2004  Sharifi v. Estate of Stratton:  In this case involving a dispute over the validity of promissory note and deed of trust encumbering a commercial property, Mr. Sidran represented the owner at trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto CA, Judge Mayhew presiding, seeking to quiet title by eliminating the debt. Defendants and Cross-Complainants sought $136,000 in principal and interest. Result:  After two days of trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of our client, quieting title and declaring the note and trust deed to be void and unenforceable.  The court also awarded our client $43,000 in attorney's fees and costs

2003   Lockett v. Flying U Rodeo:   In this case in which the Plaintiff suffered a serious leg injury as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of the Cow Palace arena  during the Grand Nationals Rodeo, we defended The State of California and Flying U Rodeo Company at trial in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City, CA, Judge Kopp presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.  Affirmed on appeal.

2002  Anderson v. Mouradian:   In this case of an alleged assault and battery by a store employee on a customer, we defended a 7-Eleven franchisee at trial in Solano County Superior Court in Fairfield CA.  Result:  Defense Verdict.

2001  Volckmann v. Southwest Door Company:  In this case of alleged defects in custom made windows and doors, we defended the manufacturer at trial in the San Mateo County Superior Court in San Mateo, CA, Judge Gemelo presiding. Plaintiff's last settlement demand before trial was $375,000.  Result:  Defense Verdict.

2001  Davis v. K-Mart:  In this case of an alleged slip and fall in which an 80 year old Plaintiff claimed severe bodily injuries, we defended K-Mart and Reyman Bros. Construction at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Kolin presiding.  Result:  Defense Verdict.  Additionally, we won and collected a judgment for contractual indemnity, consisting of $83,000 in attorney's fees and defense costs, from the masonry subcontractor in this case.

2001  MacLaren v. Syas:  In this case of a head-on motor vehicle collision in which Plaintiff claimed she suffered a permanent spinal injury, we defended the driver allegedly at fault at trial in the Trinity County Superior Court in Weaverville, CA, Judge Edwards presiding.  Result: Defense Verdict.

2000  Kirby v. 7-Eleven:  In this case of an alleged civil rights violation in the form of disability discrimination, we defended the 7-Eleven franchisee at trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto, CA, Judge Shaver presiding.  Result: Defense Verdict.

1998  DeMar v. Lemke Construction:  In this case the defendant allegedly ran over Plaintiff's foot at a construction site while operating an all-terrain forklift.  Plaintiff sued for a severe crushing injury to his foot.  We defended the forklift driver and his employer at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Rogers presiding. Result:  Defense Verdict.

1996  Steinbaugh v. Caltrans:  In this case involving the wrongful death of a passenger  who was killed when a vehicle she was riding in struck a temporary construction barrier in the median of the I-210 freeway near Pasadena, CA, we defended the construction contractor at trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Pasadena CA, Judge Swart presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.

1995  Cal Plaza v. Paller & Goldstein:  In this case involving alleged construction defects at a commercial office building in Walnut Creek, CA, in which it was claimed that our client’s sheet metal flashing caused water leaks requiring costly repairs, we defended the sheet metal flashing subcontractor at trial in Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Van de Poel presiding.  Result:  Judgment of nonsuit for defendant.

1995  Gosch v. Bayside Village:  In this case involving debris that fell from concrete forms during construction of a mid-rise apartment building causing the Plaintiff to suffer a spinal fracture, We defended the subcontractor accused of dropping the material at trial in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Chesney presiding.  Result:  Defense Verdict.

1993  Rodriguez v. County of Contra Costa:  In this case involving a claim of inverse condemnation and damage to real property against the County and a developer, we negotiated a settlement with the Plaintiff and proceeded to trial on an indemnity claim against the responsible subcontractor in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez , CA, Judge Dolgin presiding: Result:  Judgment in favor of our client for full indemnity in the amount of $275,000.

1992  Carpio v. EBMUD:  In this case involving a motor vehicle collision in which an East Bay Municipal Utility District employee was allegedly at fault, we defended EBMUD and its driver at trial in the Contra Costa Municipal Court in Richmond CA. Result: Defense Verdict.

1991 Lyle v. CIty of Hayward:  In this false arrest and false imprisonment case, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant wrongfully arrested him for public drunkenness.  Defendant contended that Plaintiff arrived at the Hayward police station in an inebriated condition to file a complaint about being falsely arrested the preceding evening in San Leandro. and that he was properly arrested and jailed until he sobered up and was released.  After a one-day bench trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Eaton presiding, the court found in favor of our client, and rendered judgment in favor of our client, the City of Hayward.

1990 Robertson v. Doe AMC-Jeep Dealer: In this property damage case, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant negligently failed to protect his classic 1967 Mercury Cougar that was in Defendant's shop for repairs, from flood damage due to the flooding of the Napa River which inundated Defendant's business premises. After a two-day bench trial in the Napa County Superior Court, the court found in favor of our client, and rendered judgment in favor of our client and against Plaintiff.

1989 European Motors v. American States Insurance Company:  In this dispute over title to a stolen vehicle, Plaintiff claimed that it was the one with valid title to the vehicle and that Defendant wrongfully repossessed the subject vehicle after it had been located.  Defendant contended that it had paid its insured's theft loss claim regarding the vehicle and thereby acquired legal title that was superior to that of Plaintiff.  After a one-day trial in the San Mateo County Superior Court, the  court found in favor of our client,and rendered judgment in favor of our client