SAN DIEGO LAWYER

Prayer is not an old woman's idle amusement. Properly understood and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.

      — Mahatma Gandhi


Thursday, December 13, 2007

Amazing settlement offers.

Law is a strange business indeed.

I had the privilege of representing a nice fellow by the name of Sean Ryan.  With the noblest of motives, Sean Ryan reported to his superiors a circumstance that he believed demonstrated a violation of law.  He was terminated shortly thereafter.  The sales that Sean Ryan had completed were given to one of his female colleagues.  She submitted the sales and received a commission.  After filing his lawsuit, Verizon recognized that it had indeed failed to pay Mr. Ryan all of his wages at time of termination.  The company sent him a check, but denied that he was owed any commission.  Sean Ryan took Verizon to court, and after several days of testimony the jury reached a verdict:  Verizon had to pay.

Despite being found liable by a jury after an extensive court trial, the Verizon / Idearc decided that it is sometimes easier to convince people through a threat than simply pay what is owed.

Verizon / Idearc chose to send the letter attached rather than pay an amount that the jury found it liable for.

Gallery Items

Verizon - Idearc walk away despite winning letter

Saturday, August 25, 2007

People v. Edward D. Jones & Co

Court of appeals discussess significance of multiple demurrers, and reconsideration according to CCP section 1008, as those matters relate to a securities violation enforcement action brought by the People of the State of California against a broker-dealer.

Gallery Items

http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/wsn/gallery/link.php?id=8

Friday, July 27, 2007

Torres v. City of San Diego

Where plaintiffs City of San Diego employee sued San Diego for a declaration of their rights under Government Code Sec. 995 and sought an order requiring the City of San Diego as a public entity to defend plaintiffs as an officer or employee sued for alleged acts or omissions in the performance of his or her public duty absent certain exceptions, the trial court and the court of appeals ruled that the indemnity was proper on summary judgment that plaintiffs were entitled to a defense and subsequently awarded attorney fees and costs incurred in the declaratory action.  The order awarding attorney fees and costs did not alter underlying judgment so as to extend time in which to appeal.  The City of San Diego Resolution requiring the city to “defend, indemnify and hold harmless all past, present and future members of the Retirement Board against all expenses, judgments, settlements, liability and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred by them in connection with any claim or lawsuit arising from any act or omission in the scope of the performance of their duties as Board Members” was a legally sufficient basis for an award of attorney fees incurred in obtaining a declaration of members’ rights to a defense in action brought against them by city. Nothing in that resolution limited recovery to fees incurred in underlying action. While the city council for the City of San Diego may not have contemplated that actions brought by the city against members of its own retirement board would be encompassed by resolution entitling such members to defense and indemnification, members of the retirement board were entitled to recover fees pursuant to such resolution where council made no findings of misconduct on the part of the board members and did not ratify the city attorney’s Michael Aguirre’s filing of action against them, and that action was voluntarily dismissed with no findings or admissions of wrongdoing.

Gallery Items

http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/wsn/gallery/link.php?id=14