Jane Doe v. O’Dell (San Diego County, CA)
Reyzin Law Firm has resolved a long battle on behalf of the most innocent of clients, elementary school-aged sexual assault victims. RLF froze and recovered all known assets that were transferred by the perpetrator to foreign corporations, including hundreds of thousands in silver coins, cash, financial accounts, in addition to a residence. While nothing can replace the innocence of a child, the recovery will be placed in trust for the girls' future counseling and care. The defendant is currently incarcerated in state prison.
Doe Client v. Doe Defendants (Contra Costa County, CA)
RLF was retained by a nationally recognized author and motivational speaker to represent him in a dispute with Client’s old business partners regarding the ownership and rights to intellectual property. The dispute was simultaneously adjudicated in State and Federal courts. During the litigation, Defendants retained numerous in and out of state firms in an effort to prove that intellectual property belonged to them rather than Client. After a long and exhausting battle, at the beginning of the trial, the Defendants agreed to relinquish all of their claims to the intellectual property and to compensate the Client for damages.
Zonana v. Porzak et al (San Diego County, CA)
RLF was retained to defend an estate sale business following an incident at an estate sale where Plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of a fall. After conducting discovery and obtaining necessary evidence, RLF was able to negotiate a deal with Plaintiff and other co-defendants to have RLF’s client’s dismissed without any contribution toward the settlement the other co-defendants had negotiated with the Plaintiff.
Seaside Air v. NB Construction (San Diego County, CA)
Client, general contractor, retained RLF to represent him in a lawsuit filed by a subcontractor for the alleged non-payment of the work invoice. RLF filed motions to dismiss the case on the basis that Plaintiff had lost its right to bring the claims against the Client regardless of the merits of the underlined claims. Before the Court’s hearing, Plaintiff approached RLF agreeing to dismiss all claims in exchange for waiver of costs.
Doe Plaintiff v. Doe Client (Alameda County, CA)
RLF was retained by the Client Company to represent it in a lawsuit filed by a shareholder alleging wage claims. Specifically, the Plaintiff had alleged that he worked for the Client Company but was not properly compensated pursuant to the California wage and hour laws. During the trial, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss all his claims and to sell all his shares in Client Company to Client at the discounted price.
Doe Client v. Doe Defendant (Solano County, CA)
Client alleged that she was racially profiled, arrested, detained and searched in a retail establishment within an amusement park on suspicion of shoplifting. RLF represented the client for violation of client's civil rights, racial discrimination and false imprisonment. Through extensive discovery, RLF was able to establish a pattern of racial profiling by the security personnel. Defendants settled the lawsuit for substantial amount to satisfaction of the Client.
Chain v. KM Partners Inc et al (Los Angeles County, CA)
RLF represented managers of the investment firm against a lawsuit filed by the investors alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, breaches of contract and other claims based on the allegations that Clients had mismanaged the investment fund. RLF aggressively defended against the accusations. As a result of RLF’s aggressive law and motion work in the case, the Court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice (barring Plaintiffs from bringing an action on the same claims.) Client was able to recover from Plaintiffs the costs expended defending the case.
City Voters v. City of Wildomar (Riverside County, CA)
RLF represented city voters to force the City Counsel to comply with a vote of the people to create electoral districts in the city. Following the trial, the court ruled against the City's position in the lawsuit and held that the City must set up and vote on electoral districts at the next possible election.