Breach of Contract

Venture Communications v. Falcon Communications
$26 million

In 1992, Mr. Klein represented a limited partner in a cable franchise, alleging a variety of causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Mr. Klein prevailed at trial and, after a court awarded judgment in favor of Mr. Klein's client, Mr. Klein's client received $26 million by way of settlement.

Affinitec v. Siemens
$5.7 million

In May 1999, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of approximately $5 million on behalf of one of its software clients against Siemens Business Communications, Inc., one of the largest companies in the world. Affinitec prevailed on all of its breach of contract claims and recovered 99% of all the damages it requested from the jury. Siemens filed a cross-complaint against Klein & Wilson's client, but recovered nothing.

STM Wireless, Inc. v. AmeriData, a Subsidiary of General Electric
$2 million

Klein & Wilson represented a public company in a complicated breach of contract action against a much larger corporation. Two weeks before trial, Klein & Wilson shared its mock trial results with the opposing side, and the parties reached a settlement worth more than $2 million.

CD Listening Bar, Inc. v. Doe Major Accounting Firm
$2 million

Klein & Wilson's client in this matter was one of the largest distributors of compact disc products in the United States. As was the result of rapid growth, the client needed to replace its existing accounting software package with a higher end package while remaining in operation. It retained a major accounting firm to do the work. The job was done poorly and Klein & Wilson's client lost millions of dollars. The difficulty in the case was proving the precise amount of damages. The case ultimately settled for $2 million.

STM Wireless, Inc. v. Gilat
$1.75 million

Klein & Wilson represented a public satellite communications company in a dispute with a competitor over a contract in Peru. The client won the contract, but alleged the competitor had stolen the contract using improper influence with Peruvian government ministers. When Klein & Wilson filed a suit on behalf of the client, the competitor's attorneys referred to the case as frivolous. Even the United States Congress became interested in the case and began its own inquiry. Ultimately, the competitor settled the case for $1.75 million.

Next Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Stauber Performance Ingredients, Inc.
$1.5 million

In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a nutritional supplements firm who sold $750,000 of nutritional supplements to defendant. Defendant alleged the product was defective and refused to pay. After Klein & Wilson filed a complaint, defendant filed a cross-complaint, alleging a variety of wrongful conduct by Klein & Wilson's client. After working up the case and attending a mediation where Klein & Wilson put on a multimedia trial presentation, defendant agreed to settle the case in an imaginative settlement which was worth almost $1.5 million to the client. This settlement would not have been possible had Klein & Wilson not done extensive briefing and put on a multimedia trial presentation at the mediation.

Devore v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company
$1.5 million

In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a dentist who could no longer practice dentistry because he suffered from chronic daily migraine headaches. The disability carrier refused to pay insurance proceeds on the ground the dentist had made misrepresentations in his application and because it challenged the extent of the dentist's disability. After Klein & Wilson received a plaintiff's verdict, the case settled for $1.5 million.

Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. Chesley Construction, Inc.

A general contractor threatened to sue Klein & Wilson's client, a homeowners' association, for unpaid construction fees. Following Klein & Wilson's advice, the homeowners' association sued first. At the binding arbitration, the association argued that not only had it paid the contractor in full, it had overpaid the contractor for its work. Before the arbitration, the association offered to settle the case for a "walk-away," with both sides surrendering their competing claims against each other. The contractor refused and insisted on pressing its cross-complaint. The case proceeded to arbitration. Using a multimedia presentation, Klein & Wilson convinced the arbitrator the association was owed every penny it requested, and the arbitrator awarded the contractor nothing. The arbitrator later told the local bar association Klein & Wilson's multimedia presentation was the most effective trial presentation he had ever seen.

Guild, Inc. v. J.C. Penney
$1.4 million

In 2004, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of $1.4 million in a breach of implied contract and copyright infringement case against one of the largest retailers in the United States. The jury awarded every penny Klein & Wilson requested. The Court commented that Klein & Wilson's multimedia trial presentation was the best it had ever seen.

Doe Corporation v. Doe Corporation (Case Confidential)
$1 million

Klein & Wilson's client hired Texas counsel to try a breach of contract case. In the middle of trial, the attorney-client relationship deteriorated. In an unusual set of circumstances, the parties' attorneys signed a letter of intent regarding settlement terms, but the case was dismissed before the parties signed a formal settlement agreement. When the defendant refused to honor the settlement terms, the client hired new Texas counsel who tried to get the case reinstated. After eight months of being in limbo, the client asked Klein & Wilson to see what it could do. Klein & Wilson resolved the case with the defendant paying Klein & Wilson's client $1 million.

Paritcher Khadem-Missagh v. Haroonian
$700,000

In 2000, Klein & Wilson represented a man who lent money to carpet salesmen in Beverly Hills. The carpet salesmen refused to pay the money back. Klein & Wilson obtained summary judgment as to two of the defendants and judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining defendants, resulting in judgments totaling $700,000.

Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
$500,000

Klein & Wilson represented the former chief executive officer of a major corporation. The major corporation had failed to live up to numerous provisions of a post-employment agreement. After three days of arbitration, the defendant agreed to pay all the money Klein & Wilson's client requested, totaling over $500,000.

Wesley v. Kifton
$500,000

In this construction defect case, Mr. Wilson sued some of the largest developers in California, including Jack Nicklaus (the golfer) and Watt Industries. Mr. Wilson's clients purchased a large residential lot on a Jack Nicklaus golf course and, soon after the purchase, the lot was destroyed by a flood. All the defendants denied liability, and Mr. Nicklaus even threatened Mr. Wilson with a malicious prosecution action. After Mr. Wilson presented compelling evidence that the lot was defective, the defendants settled by paying approximately $500,000.

Breton v. Midland TME
$250,000

In a construction dispute, Mr. Klein represented a construction company for collection of its contract account and foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. The defendants alleged construction defect and a variety of other defenses, including some issues never before considered by a California court. Mr. Klein recovered over $250,000 for the construction company and won the right for his client to foreclose on its mechanic's lien.

Masonry Mechanics v. Breton Construction
$200,000

Mr. Wilson represented Breton Construction in this construction defect and breach of contract action. Masonry Mechanics sued Breton Construction for several hundred thousand dollars for nonpayment of its work. Mr. Wilson proved that Breton Construction refused to pay for the work because it was defective. Moreover, Mr. Wilson proved that Masonry Mechanics caused Breton Construction to suffer approximately $200,000 in delay damages. At arbitration, the court awarded Masonry Mechanics nothing and awarded Mr. Wilson's client approximately $200,000.

HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. MTDS, Inc.
$15,000

One of the largest financial institutions in the world sued Klein & Wilson's client for $1 million it claimed was owed. As a result of bookkeeping errors, Klein & Wilson's client admittedly lost the $1 million of plaintiff's money. Klein & Wilson was able to convince the plaintiff to take less than $0.75 on the dollar of the amounts owed and the client's insurance carrier to pay the balance owed, except for the client's deductible of $15,000. Accordingly, on a loss of over $1 million, the client paid only $15,000.

Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)

Klein & Wilson represented some of the largest companies in the world in an action against a toxic polluter to fund a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency. The toxic polluter said it could not pay what it owed because it was out of business and had no assets. Klein & Wilson uncovered evidence that defendant's president used the company like a personal piggy bank. Therefore, Klein & Wilson pursued the president under an alter ego theory. These tactics resulted in a substantial settlement for Klein & Wilson's clients. Accordingly, in a case where the target defendant had no money, Klein & Wilson still recovered almost every penny owed.

Doe v. Doe Corporation (Case Confidential)
(Settlement)

Mr. Wilson represented Doe Corporation, who was sued by an individual claiming Doe Corporation entered into a written agreement providing the individual a 30 percent interest in the company as well as guaranteeing employment for five years at $100,000 per year. Plaintiff's settlement demand was $5 million. Doe Corporation hired Mr. Wilson just two weeks before the case was set for trial. Mr. Wilson persuaded the trial court to continue the trial. Mr. Wilson then took plaintiff's deposition by videotape, during which Mr. Wilson impeached plaintiff many times. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson persuaded plaintiff to attend a mediation. At the mediation, Mr. Wilson used a multimedia presentation showing how badly plaintiff had been impeached. The case settled at mediation for $60,000.

Siegel v. Dyer
(Settlement)

Plaintiff sued Klein & Wilson's client, alleging she failed to disclose fungus when she sold her property to plaintiff. The case was troubling because the parties signed an amendment to the agreement in which the client disclosed the fungus, plaintiff agreed to take responsibility for it, and plaintiff received a credit for the condition. Due to this fact, Klein & Wilson filed a cross-complaint alleging plaintiff was breaching the terms of the contract. On the eve of the hearing on a motion for summary judgment Klein & Wilson filed, plaintiff agreed to pay Klein & Wilson's client $60,000 for having to defend a frivolous lawsuit.

Ambassador Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Wei-Chuan Investments
(
Settlement)

Klein & Wilson was retained only after the client suffered a judgment approaching $70 million. Following reversal of the trial court's ruling, Klein & Wilson was able to have the judgment reduced by tens of millions of dollars.

LDM v. Unisys Corporation
(Confidential Settlement)

In 1986, Mr. Klein negotiated a settlement for his client with Unisys Corporation. At the time, this was the largest settlement ever paid by Unisys Corporation in a non-securities case. The settlement amount is confidential.

Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. State Farm
(Confidential Settlement)

In conjunction with the construction defect case referenced above, Klein & Wilson filed a first party claim against State Farm Insurance. The claim was rejected, and Klein & Wilson filed an action for bad faith against the insurance company. Before any depositions were taken, State Farm settled by paying the association's entire claim. The settlement amount is confidential.

Singh v. Royal Maccabees Insurance Company
(Confidential Settlement)

Klein & Wilson's client was a prominent anesthesiologist. Following a traffic accident, he suffered carpal tunnel syndrome, for which the insurance company paid partial disability benefits. However, after releasing the insurance company from any claim for partial disability, the client found he was still not improving. The insurance company refused to pay any further benefits, and Klein & Wilson sued on behalf of the client. After getting the case ready for trial, the insurance company settled for a confidential amount.

JAG Industries v. Brutoco Development
(Defense Verdict)

In this case, Mr. Klein represented a land developer accused of breaching an option to buy a particular property. Mr. Klein moved for a defense verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff's presentation of evidence. The motion was granted, resulting in a judgment for Mr. Klein's client.

Overton, Lyman & Prince v. John Doe
(Defense Verdict)

In 1986, Mr. Klein represented a client of Overton, Lyman & Prince, a prominent law firm, who contested any obligation to pay further attorneys' fees to the Overton firm. At trial, the court determined the Overton firm had not carried its burden in proving fees were owed and, upon Mr. Klein's motion, the court granted a defense verdict in favor of Mr. Klein's client.

Saad v. Gilchrist
(Defense Verdict)

In this action, Mr. Klein represented the former president of a software company on a breach of guarantee case. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, Mr. Klein moved for a defense verdict. Judgment was entered on behalf of Mr. Klein's client without his client being required to present further evidence. Costs were awarded to Mr. Klein's client.

Kessler v. Horan
(Plaintiff Verdict)

In this attorney malpractice action, Mr. Wilson represented an investor who purchased real estate in Newport Beach. The attorney who represented Mr. Wilson's client in the transaction botched the transaction so badly, the client's title to the property was unclear, which resulted in several other lawsuits being filed. The attorney denied all liability and the case went to trial. The attorney was represented by one of Orange County's most experienced trial attorneys. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson prevailed at trial and recovered all the damages he requested.


The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.