Goodstein & Berman LLP

Your Subtitle text

CHECK OUT OUR LAW BLOG: http://blog.goodsteinbermanlaw.com Newsletter

NEWSLETTER

July 19, 2010 - Appellate Court upholds G&B's $22,402,759.10 jury verdict in favor of beleaguered Southern California city, affirms judgment on all grounds.

After representing the City of Compton successfully at trial, Goodstein & Berman handled the appeal, including drafting a 105 page Appellate Brief and oral argument before a three-justice panel of California's Second District Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court denied writ review, making the opinion of the appellate court final. The opinion in Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City of Compton, can be found at 186 Cal.App.4th 1114, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9236, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,245 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Jul 19, 2010) (NO. B196639), review denied (Oct 20, 2010).

November 27, 2006 - Jury awards $22,402,759.10 to G&B's client in one of the largest public corruption verdicts in California history

After a month-long trial, a jury deliberated only 3 hours before returning a unanimous verdict in favor of Goodstein & Berman's client, the City of Compton, on the plaintiff's $20 million breach of contract claim, and awarded Compton nearly $22.5 million on its cross-complaint against Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. and its owner, Michael Aloyan. Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City of Compton, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 323801. See case summary below.

April 6, 2006 - Goodstein & Berman LLP Named Trial Counsel for Local Municipality in $40 million Municipal Contract Dispute

Goodstein & Berman was recently retained as trial counsel to represent a Southern California city in a case involving allegations of bribery and political corruption in the award of a $100 million municipal waste hauling contract. The city terminated the 15-year, no-bid franchise agreement after discovering that the franchisee had made hundreds of thousands of dollars in unreported "political campaign contributions" to three of the city councilpersons who voted to award the lucrative contract, and after the franchisee was convicted of bribing an official in a neighboring city. The franchisee sued, and the city counter-claimed to establish that the contract is void pursuant to a statute making it illegal for a public official to have a financial interest in a public contract made by him in his official capacity.

Update May 31, 2006: In the first phase of trial Goodstein & Berman successfully established that the individual cross-defendant was the alter ego of the corporate franchisee.

Update July 21, 2006: The trial court granted Goodstein & Berman's client partial summary judgment, eliminating at least $10 million of potential damages exposure. The court ruled as a matter of law that the city legally terminated the franchise agreement in September 2004, based on the franchisee's bribery conviction.

A jury must still decide whether the franchise agreement was obtained in violation of a State law making it illegal for any city official to have a financial interest in a public contract. That phase of trial is scheduled to commence on August 23, 2006. (click links to see coverage in The Compton Bulletin and The Wave Los Angeles).

September 27, 2005 - Jury Returns Defense Verdict in $23 Million Real Estate Dispute

In a case that made local headlines (including coverage in the Santa Monica Lookout News and Santa Monica Daily Press), Goodstein & Berman LLP represented the defendant and prevailing party, the City of Santa Monica, in Russell Barnard v. City of Santa Monica, et al., LASC Case No. BC 281367. In the lawsuit, which was filed in 2002 but did not reach trial until August 2005, the plaintiff, a local restauranteur and business man, sought nearly $23 million in damages for the City's alleged breach of a contract to develop and operate "Club Route 66," a nearly 20,000 square foot restaurant and entertainment complex planned to be built on the famed Santa Monica Pier.

The plaintiff had accused the City of breaching the contract and acting in bad faith by interfering with his efforts to develop the property for more than 10 years, and by refusing to amend the contract to expand the building site to accommodate the plaintiff's approved building plans. The City, in turn, accused the plaintiff of stalling the project for more than a decade while he unsuccessfully searched for investors and lenders willing to put up the more than $5.5 million required to construct.

After more than four weeks of testimony, the jury returned a defense verdict on the plaintiff's complaint, finding that the City did not breach any express or implied obligation under the Lease. Moreover, the jury found that the plaintiff had breached the lease himself by failing to meet the deadlines for performance and failing to construct the premises. The verdict also entitles the City to recover more than $1 million in attorneys fees and costs from the plaintiff.