Call & Jensen secured the complete pretrial dismissal of a high stakes class action complaint against one of the world’s largest personal computer makers. Before dismissal, the Plaintiff sought classwide damages in excess of $100 million.

For more information contact Matt Orr at morr@www.calljensen.com

Call & Jensen attorneys Julie Trotter, Jackie Beaumont and Melinda Evans successfully defended their summary judgment win on appeal in a wrongful termination lawsuit brought against Chevron and two individual supervisors. The lawsuit alleged complex and novel issues regarding the scope of protection afforded non-citizen employees under California’s FEHA. Plaintiff was a high-earning expat seeking over $1.5 million in damages. The Call & Jensen team prevailed on summary judgment at the trial level after securing damaging deposition admissions during a grueling, two-day deposition of plaintiff. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Call & Jensen recently persuaded the Honorable Ann I. Jones of the Los Angeles County Superior Court to deny class certification to a proposed class of more than 1,500 therapists in a wage-and-hour lawsuit. Call & Jensen obtained this victory for its client following more than four years of protracted litigation against class counsel. The attorneys who handled the case were Julie Trotter and Delavan Dickson.

Call & Jensen attorneys recently obtained a complete dismissal with prejudice of all shareholder derivative claims in a business dispute in federal court. Last year, a closely held corporation filed a lawsuit against its former CEO, alleging fraud and misappropriation of millions of dollars. The defendant countered with shareholder derivative claims against the corporation’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer. Representing these individual counter-defendants, Call & Jensen attacked the derivative claims, arguing they failed to state any valid claims. Agreeing, the Court dismissed the claims, but afforded the defendant “one final opportunity” to amend. When the defendant tried to allege the derivative claims again, Call & Jensen promptly persuaded the Court that the claims were still invalid. The Court dismissed all the derivative claims with prejudice, thereby removing the board chairman and CFO from the suit. This case was litigated by Matthew R. Orr, William P. Cole, L. Lisa Sandoval, and Jeffrey M. David.

Call & Jensen recently obtained a complete defense judgment for its clients in a hotly-contested, multi-million-dollar lawsuit. Call & Jensen obtained the victory via a summary judgment motion after stepping in to take over the defense following years of protracted litigation. The complaint sought more than $5 million in damages based on alleged violations of state and federal consumer credit reporting laws. Attorneys David R. Sugden and Melinda Evans obtained the complete victory for their clients.

Call & Jensen secured a significant transfer of venue for its client in a business dispute in federal court. Despite the existence of a forum selection clause in the parties’ contract requiring that all disputes “arising out of or relating to” the contract be filed in Florida, where Call & Jensen’s client is based, the Plaintiff filed suit in California, where the alleged work was performed. Call & Jensen’s client had previously filed a contract claim in Florida pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Rather than file a cross-claim in Florida, however, the Plaintiff filed a new suit in California, increasing the litigation costs and burden. Call & Jensen moved to transfer the new case to Florida, which the Plaintiff heavily contested, arguing that the parties’ contract had expired and that the claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment were not based on the contract. Call & Jensen, however, persuaded the judge to adopt a newly devised standard for determining the correct venue in light of the forum selection clause, and to transfer the case to Florida. The successful motion was authored by Matthew R. Orr and Joshua G. Simon. William P. Cole provided oral argument at the hearing.

In April 2016, Call & Jensen attorneys Mark Eisenhut and Samuel G. Brooks obtained a complete defense victory on behalf of their client, who is the CEO of a prominent business. After four days of trial, the judge denied all claims and relief sought against Call & Jensen’s client. According to the ruling, evidence presented by Call & Jensen “destroyed [Petitioner’s] credibility and made Petitioner come off as ungrounded and truly bizarre in nature.”

Call & Jensen attorneys Matthew R. Orr and Joshua G. Simon secured a class dismissal with prejudice, in a putative consumer class action proceeding in a Massachusetts federal district court against Gencor, an Orange County-based herbal supplement manufacturer. The proposed class action accused Gencor and other defendants, including General Nutrition Corporation (GNC), of misleading consumers by manipulating scientific data regarding the health effects of the herbal extract fenugreek. Call & Jensen moved to dismiss the lawsuit by attacking all nine legal claims, including those brought under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and various California and Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. The U.S. District Judge agreed with Call & Jensen’s arguments in their entirety, and granted the motion to dismiss the firm’s client from the case.