FSG attorneys Jim Stroffe, David Hunt, Jennifer Stroffe and Andrew Nelson successfully secured an order for injunction and appointment of a Receiver in a case involving multiple out-of-state defendants, with properties located in several different state jurisdictions pursuant to an ex parte application filed in the US Federal District Court for the Central District of California. By immediately mobilizing its attorneys to simultaneously file a multiple count complaint consisting of over 100 pages and an ex parte application consisting of over 600 pages, FSG was able to obtain this extraordinary relief on an expedited basis despite the general reluctance of courts to issue appointment orders and numerous obstacles raised by defendants’ counsel. At issue in this case is defendants’ intentional diversion of client funds and dissipation of client assets in excess of $15 Million. In the order appointing the Receiver, Judge Guilford, among other things, vested the Receiver with the full and exclusive power, duty, and authority to administer and manage the defendants’ business affairs, funds, assets, choses in action and any of their other real and personal property – a huge victory by FSG’s legal team for its client.
On November 6, 2012, FSG attorney Andrew Nelson successfully obtained an order quashing service of a summons on FSG’s clients. At issue in this commercial dispute was whether the Los Angeles Superior Court could exercise jurisdiction over FSG’s Nevada-based clients. Mr. Nelson argued that the firm’s clients did not have the requisite “minimum contacts” with California, such that exercising jurisdiction over them in this state would offend established constitutional principles. Following oral argument, Judge Dunn agreed with FSG, ruling that the evidence before it provided an insufficient basis to haul FSG’s clients into a California court.
On June 1, 2012, FSG attorneys, Jim Stroffe, Eoin Kreditor, Andrew Nelson and Jennifer Stroffe successfully defeated a motion for partial summary judgment filed against its client, a land developer. At issue was the question of insurance coverage. FSG’s client had been sued by several parties in connection with a development in San Bernardino. But when FSG’s client tendered the defense of these various matters to its insurer, the insurer denied coverage, claiming that the claimed damages arose out of the policy’s professional services exclusion, among other things. In the subsequent lawsuit between FSG’s client and the insurer, the insurer sought a ruling from the court confirming that its denial of coverage was proper. Judge Carney of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, denied this relief. In the order, Judge Carney ruled that there were disputed issues of material fact, namely whether the damages arose out of the services that would be included under the relevant policy exclusion rather than ordinary, non-professional duties.
The FSG Real Estate Department successfully negotiated the early termination of a commercial lease for a San Diego based restaurant client, saving the client well in excess of $175,000 and avoiding costly litigation in the process. Although the restaurant operations were underwater, the lease guaranty was amply supported by a healthy personal financial statement and there was an enormous emotional attachment to the business venture. Through early intervention, intense negotiations with the landlord and a lot of empathy and emotional support, FSG Real Estate attorney Jim Stroffe was able to quickly complete the termination agreement reducing the client’s exposure to additional operational losses and minimizing the emotional turmoil experienced in the process. Grateful for FSG’s efforts, our client remarked, “I have never said this to any attorney, but you are worth every penny you charge me. Frame this!!!!!”
The residents of Bay Island in Newport Harbor have won an important battle against the California Coastal Commission. They defeated an attempt by the Commission to take property rights from Bay Island and from the City of Newport Beach in violation of a previous court decision and of the California Coastal Act.
This victory is an important part of teaching the Commission and its staff that they are not above the law or above private property rights in California. To read more click link to article …