Success Stories
Payne & Fears LLP Wins Appeal; Victory After Jury Trial Affirmed in Total - 6/19/2008In January 2006, Payne & Fears LLP obtained complete dismissal of a discrimination suit brought against its client, a local hospital, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, a surgeon formerly under contract with the hospital, claimed race, disability and sexual orientiation discrimination by the hospital and other entity and individual defendants. After the dismissal of his case in District Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit regarding his claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1981; California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5; and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. On appeal, Payne & Fears argued that (1) the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a "severe and pervasive" hostile work environment for purposes of Section 1981; (2) the plaintiff's claims for workplace discrimination were insufficient to state a claim under sections 51 and 51.5; and (3) the plaintiff's claims under the FEHA were barred by the statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Payne & Fears on all three issues and upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's lawsuit. James L. Payne and Laura Fleming handled the defense of this case.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment on behalf of its client, a major aerospace manufacturer, with regard to a purported whistleblower suit brought in Orange County Superior Court and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, a former employee and registered nurse, claimed that she had been terminated in retaliation for her complaints about other employees who allegedly failed to appear for their scheduled health exams according to company policy. Payne & Fears obtained summary judgment based upon the plaintiff's admissions at deposition, along with declarations from key witnesses, which established that the plaintiff had not engaged in any legally protected activity prior to her termination, and that the plaintiff had no evidence to support her claim that the company's stated reason for her termination - an admitted error in clinical judgment - was pretext for retaliation. The district court also agreed with Payne & Fears' analysis of the relevant statutory language, including California Labor Code section 1102.5(c). Daniel F. Fears, Laura Fleming and Laura B. Chaimowitz handled the defense of this case.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained a complete defense victory for its client, a major local manufacturer, in an employment discrimination case. The case, filed in Orange County Superior Court, alleged that Payne & Fears' client discriminated against the plaintiff based upon his age, retaliated against him for making internal complaints, breached an employment contract, wrongfully terminated the the plaintiff, and wrongfully withheld several hundred thousand dollars' worth of salary and stock options. Payne & Fears successfully moved to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, and, after a five-day arbitration, obtained an award in the employer's favor on all claims. Jeffrey K. Brown and Katherine L. Pearson handled the defense of the case.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained a reported decision from the National Labor Relations Board dismissing an unfair labor practice case arising from the subcontracting activity of its client, a major local employer. 350 NLRB No. 88 (September 13, 2007). Jeffrey K. Brown defended the case for the employer.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained an attorneys' fee award against the unsuccessful plaintiff after prevailing in a disability discrimination case brought against its client under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Superior Court found that Payne & Fears' client met the Christianburg Garment standard of showing that the case was "frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation," and awarded the successful defendant the full amount of Payne & Fears' fees expended defending against the FEHA claims. Jeffrey K. Brown and Todd C. Bouton handled the defense of the case and the successful fee motion.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained a reported decision from the National Labor Relations Board upholding the right of its client, a nationwide operator of golf course properties, to withdraw recognition from the Laborers' International Union of North America and operate union-free. 350 NLRB No. 28 (July 19, 2007). Daniel F. Fears and Jeffrey K. Brown handled the case for the employer.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment on behalf of its client, a major Southern California theme park, with regard to a disability discrimination/retaliation suit brought in Orange County Superior Court and removed to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, a former employee, alleged that she had been wrongfully demoted when she was not offfered an identical secretarial position upon her return from an extended leave of absence. Payne & Fears obtained summary judgment based upon the plaintiff's admissions at deposition, which established that the plaintiff was not disabled at the time of the alleged wrongful demotion; that she never notified her employer of any need for accommodation; and that she had not engaged in any legally-protected activity at the time she was cleared to return to work. Daniel F. Fears and Laura Fleming handled the defense of the case.
An Orange County Superior Court judge granted summary judgment on February 1, 2006, in favor of Payne & Fears' client, Corinthian Colleges, and its codefendant, the Anaheim Angels, in connection with a lawsuit regarding a Mother's Day tote bag giveaway. The lawsuit, filed by Dr. Michael Cohn, alleged that the tote bag giveaway, which was sponsored by Corinthian Colleges, honoring mothers at a Mother's Day Angel's baseball game in 2005, violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act because tote bags were given only to women eighteen years and older. Dr. Cohn sought to certify a class of all men who attended the game and to collect sanctions of approximately seventy million dollars.
The judge granted summary judgment in favor of Corinthian Colleges and the Anaheim Angels, and issued an Order to Show Cause regarding the granting of sanctions against Dr. Cohn's legal counsel.
Daniel Rasmussen and Julie Bisceglia handled the case for Payne &Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP won summary judgment for its client, a large nationwide waste disposal and transportation company, in an action brought by a former employee. The employee alleged that Payne & Fears’ client had harassed, discriminated against, and wrongfully terminated him in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. After limited discovery, Payne & Fears brought a successful motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the employee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and could not establish the legal elements of any of his causes of action. Attorneys Jeffrey K. Brown and John T. Egley handled the defense of this case.
Payne & Fears LLP won summary judgment for its client, a New Jersey intellectual property firm, in an action brought by a California tool distributor and its Taiwanese supplier. The complaint alleged that the client violated federal antitrust law, the Lanham Act and state law when it brought a prior suit against the distributor and supplier for patent infringement, and sought millions in damages. In 2005, Payne & Fears LLP brought a successful motion for partial summary judgment on litigation privilege grounds, which eliminated six of nine claims. After discovery, attorneys Daniel L. Rasmussen and Daniel F. Lula persuaded the federal court that the underlying patent case was supported by probable cause and protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, resulting in the dismissal of the three remaining claims against our client.
Payne & Fears LLP recently obtained the dismissal of all claims brought against our client, St. James Anglican Church, by the national Episcopal Church. The complaint sought to confiscate the property of St. James Church as a result of its disaffiliation from the Episcopal Church and its realignment with another branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Attorneys Eric C. Sohlgren and Daniel F. Lula persuaded the Orange County Superior Court that our client, a separate California corporation, did not lose title to its property merely because it changed religious affiliation. Payne & Fears LLP had previously brought successful anti-SLAPP motions against a similar complaint filed by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. This latest victory terminates all claims against St. James Anglican Church in the trial court.
[Press release and copies of the court’s orders in this case are available in the Publications/Articles section of this website.]
Payne & Fears lawyers recently obtained summary judgment in a case alleging wrongful termination, national origin discrimination, age discrimination, and discrimination for taking a family leave. The plaintiff had served as a client manager for a financial institution. The financial institution terminated the plaintiff's employment for failing to meet the bank's requirements for client satisfaction and for her treatment of her co-workers. The plaintiff filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. After the plaintiff engaged in extensive discovery, including taking ten depositions, and serving hundreds of discovery requests, the court ruled that there was no factual basis for her claim. Payne & Fears partner Karen Frankudakis defended this case.
Payne & Fears, LLP, obtained the dismissal of a potential class action against its client, a Texas-based online dating service accused of violating
Payne & Fears LLP obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming summary judgment on behalf of our client, The Boeing Company, in a wrongful termination case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's holding that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted and barred the plaintiff's claims. Jeffrey K. Brown of the Irvine office handled the defense of the case in the district court and on appeal
Payne & Fears LLP successfully defended our client, a major national manufacturer, in a wrongful termination case taken to arbitration by the Association of Western Pulp & Paper Workers, Local 672. The Union argued that the defendant employer had violated the applicable labor contract and discharged the grievant without good cause. The arbitrator held, based on admissions obtained at the hearing, that the Union had orally agreed to extend the employee's probationary status, with the result that the contractual grievance and arbitration mechanism could not be used to challenge the discharge. Jeffrey K. Brown handled the defense of the case
Payne & Fears LLP prevailed in a labor arbitration in which the incumbent union challenged our client's plant-wide method of determining pay rates under a collective bargaining agreement. Jeffrey K. Brown defended the case.
Employment Law Group attorneys Karen Frankudakis and Laurel Adcock successfully defended our client, a major national banking institution, in a wrongful termination / discrimination case. The case was brought by a former employee who had been employed by the bank for 28 years. The employee alleged violation of public policy, age discrimination; violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, age discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation; breach of implied contract and unfair competition. The court granted summary judgment in favor of our client with respect to all of the former employee's claims
Payne & Fears LLP successfully obtained summary judgment for our client, ITT Industries, Inc., in an insurance subrogation claim against ITT brought by a workers compensation insurer. After successfully defending that judgment on appeal, Payne & Fears was able to use the same award as res judicata in a summary judgment against a major national property insurance carrier to defeat another subrogation claim against ITT arising from the same incident. Daniel M. Livingston represented ITT in both actions.
Payne & Fears LLP won summary judgment in United States District Court on behalf of our client, a major adoption agency, in a civil rights action brought by two women who claimed they were discriminated against by the agency on the basis of sexual orientation. Daniel M. Livingston and Daniel F. Lula were the victorious attorneys in that matter.
The firm recently concluded a lengthy negotiation with an excess liability insurer for a top five homebuilder, resulting in the payment by the insurer of approximately $2.9 million to the builder in reimbursement of costs incurred to respond to construction defect claims by homeowners. The settlement was particularly gratifying because: (1) it resulted in the reimbursement of investigative, defense and settlement costs incurred to resolve the homeowner claims before the homeowners filed suit, and (2) it was achieved without litigating potentially difficult coverage issues with the insurer. Tom Vincent, a partner in the firm whose practice includes defending construction disputes for builders and developers, was instrumental in achieving this result.
The firm's Insurance Coverage Group is fortunate to be in the position of influencing the development of insurance coverage law in Arizona and Nevada. Unlike California, these states have yet to address several core issues affecting insurance coverage for construction-defect claims. The firm is presently litigating these issues in the Arizona Court of Appeal in a $24 million case for a large, publicly-traded homebuilder. The firm is also litigating many of these same issues in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in what may be the first case to decide these issues under Nevada law. We will keep you informed regarding the outcome of these important cases.
Payne & Fears LLP secured the first appellate court published decision, Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. UHP Healthcare, 2003 Daily J. D.A.R. 859 (Jan. 22, 2003), which allows a hospital to sue a health care service plan or HMO directly for reimbursement for emergency and medically necessary services provided to the plan's enrollees, even if that hospital has no contract with the plan or HMO. The Coast Plaza decision is significant for both contracting and non contracting hospitals and providers because it makes clear that all providers can sue the plan directly for reimbursement for these non contracted services.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment for our client, The Boeing Company, in a wrongful termination case brought by 22 former employees. The United States District Court granted Boeing's motion, holding that the employees' claims were preempted and barred by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment for our client, an international construction-industry supplier, on a race-discrimination and wrongful termination case brought before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The court granted summary judgment after finding that the plaintiff's deposition testimony established that there was no triable issue, and that Payne & Fears' client had terminated the plaintiff for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Jeffrey K. Brown and James R. Moss handled the case for the defendant.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment in a contentious breach of contract/bad faith lawsuit involving four union members based on admissions from the plaintiffs during their depositions.
Payne & Fears LLP convinced a plaintiff to drop her sexual harassment and discrimination claims after our investigation exposed evidence of her wrongdoing, including taking of confidential information, misappropriation of trade secrets, and conversion of property.
Payne & Fears LLP recovered close to $100,000 in contested insurance coverage for a non-profit charitable organization which serves the needs of abused children, while avoiding litigation.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained a complete defense award for our client, Integrated Aerospace, on a $60,000 plus wage claim brought by a former employee who claimed that he had been misclassified as "exempt" from California overtime requirements.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgments in two separate actions, one for defamation and one for breach of contract and wrongful termination brought against a major manufacturer of printed circuit boards in Orange County.
Payne & Fears LLP convinced a plaintiff to drop her Business & Professions Code section 17200 claim seeking collective relief on behalf of over 100 other employees from a national employer, significantly narrowing our client's potential liability and posturing the case for summary judgment.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained a defense summary judgment in a five plaintiff age discrimination and wrongful termination case against a major local employer.
Payne & Fears LLP successfully defended our client, Desert Pines Golf Club, against a wrongful termination charge initiated by the Laborers' International Union of North America. The employer prevailed before the Administrative Law Judge and the National Labor Relations Board.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained an arbitration award on behalf of our client, American Golf Corporation, on a claim for breach of a collective bargaining agreement brought by the Laborers' International Union of North America. The arbitrator ruled in the employer's favor based on an analysis of the interplay between California wage and hour law and the provisions of the applicable union contract.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment for our client, The Boeing Company, in a wrongful termination case. The United States District Court granted Boeing's motion on the ground that, based on admissions obtained in the litigation, the plaintiff could not prove any unlawful motivation in the termination decision.
C. Darryl Cordero obtained a $5 million judgment for a San Diego developer client against his insurer, Insurance Company of the West, following a three week jury trial. The case, which has already established important precedents for policyholders in prior appeals, is now on appeal to the California Court of Appeal.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment for our client, the Boeing Company, in a wrongful termination case originally filed in the United States District Court. After the federal court granted Boeing's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, the arbitrator granted summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had no evidence of wrongful motive, and nothing to contradict the company's evidence of the true reason for discharge. Daniel F. Fears and Jeffrey K. Brown handled the defense of the case for Boeing.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment before the United States District Court in a failure-to-promote case in which the plaintiff alleged sex discrimination, race discrimination and invasion of privacy. Jeffrey K. Brown handled the defense of the case.
C. Darryl Cordero prosecuted a class action case against Farmers Insurance, which resulted in him distributing $51 million to California hospitals. The case concerned allegations that Farmers had submitted false accountings in a group liability insurance program to understate a distributable surplus.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment for our client, the Boeing Company, in a wrongful termination case stemming from the discharge of a union-represented employee. The court granted summary judgment based on the plaintiff's admissions, obtained during the discovery process, which established the absence of evidence of discriminatory treatment. Jeffrey K. Brown handled the case for Boeing.
Following an 8-week jury trial of a high stakes glass ceiling sex discrimination case, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Payne & Fears' client, Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. ("TAIS"). Payne & Fears attorneys, Jim Payne and Laura Fleming, were principal architects of the successful defense. The plaintiff, a former national sales vice president, alleged that TAIS, a maker of sophisticated laptop computers, failed to promote her to the highest executive levels of the company due to her sex. In addition, the plaintiff pointed to an alleged under-representation of women at the top executive level as evidence of a general atmosphere of discrimination. At trial, Payne & Fears ably demonstrated that various promotional decisions and reorganizations surrounding the plaintiff were necessary adaptations to a volatile technology industry. Payne & Fears also established that TAIS, in the face of a declining workforce, had made good faith efforts to increase representation of women in upper management.
