As one of Oakland, California's oldest law firms, Burnham Brown has a long established history of trying complex business, civil rights and catastrophic injury cases. After celebrating its 105th anniversary last year, the firm celebrated a new milestone when it obtained an unprecedented four defense verdicts in a row between July and August 2005. These victories, at trials in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Las Vegas were obtained by Burnham Brown attorneys Charles Alfonzo, Cathy Arias, Robert Bodzin, Richard Finn, Claudia Leed, Jimmie Williams and John Verber. The following is a description of these verdicts:
Unanimous Defense Verdict in Civil Rights Jury Trial in Los Angeles (Cathy Arias and Claudia Leed):
Plaintiffs included African-Americans and disabled persons who visited a McDonald's franchise while accompanied by alleged assistance dogs. The lawsuit, filed under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Business & Professions Code 17200, alleged that the franchise owner and employees discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of race and/or disability by refusing them and their alleged assistance dogs access to the restaurant. The defense presented evidence that plaintiffs had filed over a dozen similar lawsuits against other businesses and also that none of the dogs were either identified or acting as service animals when they were at the restaurant. The jury rejected plaintiffs' claims, which prior to trial amounted to $2.5 Million in damages. One day later, at a bench trial, the Judge granted defense verdict and dismissed the Unfair Business Practices Act Claim.
After Only 40-Minutes of Deliberations, Unanimous Jury in San Francisco Reaches Defense Verdict in Products Liability Case (Jimmie Williams):
Mr. Williams defended the manufacturer of a nozzle on a gasoline hose against claims that design defects caused a fuel spill that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall and sustain personal injuries while using the nozzle at a self-serve Chevron station. The plaintiff alleged that after activating the service station pump with a credit card and lifting the nozzle off the cradle, gasoline spontaneously emerged from the nozzle without her pulling the lever or doing anything else to activate its flow. The defense presented evidence that it was mechanically improbable for the nozzle to operate in the manner described, and that operational tests conducted both before and after the incident indicated that the nozzle worked as intended. Plaintiff's claims against the gas station owner and operator were dismissed during the trial and she believed her best chance of prevailing was against the nozzle manufacturer. The jurors were to determine whether the nozzle was defective under the "Consumer Expectations Test". Less than an hour after deliberations began, the jury delivered a defense verdict.
Federal Court Judge in San Francisco Bench Trial Grants Defense Verdict on International Commercial Litigation Case Involving Distributor in China (John Verber and Robert Bodzin):
A major United States electronics company was sued for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, fraud and Unfair Business Practices by its former exclusive distributor for a certain product-line in China. Burnham Brown's client terminated the contract in 1999 after several years of plaintiff's failure to meet his multi-million dollar sales quotas; plaintiff based his suit on a number of conspiracy theories, which included the claim that his appointment as exclusive distributor was merely a ruse designed to allow Defendant to steal his contacts in China. Defendant also filed a counterclaim for rescission because plaintiff failed to register to conduct business in China, which was required under the contract. Prior to trial, Senior Judge Conti, pursuant to Defendants' motions, dismissed all claims of fraud, tort and Unfair Business Practices. At the week-long bench trial, Defendant presented Lei Jue, a licensed attorney from Shanghai, China as its expert on Chinese regulatory law. Her testimony helped convinced Judge Conti to rescind the contract. In its 13-page written decision, Judge Conti also rejected plaintiff's claims that Defendant breached the contract and granted a defense verdict on the remaining contract claims and the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Las Vegas Jury Unanimously Rejects Mold Personal Injury Claim (Richard Finn and Charles Alfonzo):
Only two months before trial, Burnham Brown was hired to try this closely watched mold case on behalf of a national plumbing manufacturer. Plaintiff claimed plumbing leaks in and above his condominium resulted in elevated levels of "toxic mold" in the air and walls which caused an exacerbation of a preexisting asthma condition which required him to be twice hospitalized. At trial, Defendants presented testimony that the plumbing system did not leak while its work was performed. After many years of fine-tuning their arguments against medical causation in such mold cases, Messrs. Finn and Alfonzo presented expert testimony that Plaintiff's theories were simply "junk science" and should be disregarded. The jury agreed.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Anti-Trust Verdict (Eric Haas and Charles Alfonzo)
One of the firm's past trial victories was also recently affirmed in a published decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case The Jack Russell Terrier Network of Northern California v. American Kennel Club (407 F. 3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005). Burnham Brown attorney Eric Haas successfully defended the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America at a federal court trial in San Francisco in 2002 against claims that its policies of excluding members and terriers who were associated with the American Kennel Club violated federal anti-trust laws, constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act and involved unfair business practices. The appeal, which was co-written by Mr. Haas and Mr. Alfonzo, was argued last year. In May 2005, the Ninth Circuit found that it was a case of first impression and affirmed the verdict.