Practice Areas & Industries: Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP

If litigation becomes necessary, our trial lawyers draw on extensive courtroom experience in state, federal and appellate courts through out the country as well as top-flight mediation and arbitration skills. Our clients come to us for direction in a myriad of matters ranging from protection of intellectual property and avoidance of environmental liabilities to insurance defense and product liability representation.

Representative Matters

Eldorado Stone, LLC v. Renaissance Stone, Inc., et al. 

On behalf of our client, Eldorado Stone, Luce Forward received a total verdict of $20.5 million on a misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark and copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The unanimous verdict was comprised of $17.5 million in compensatory damages and approximately $3.85 million in punitive damages. his case not only protected the intellectual property that Eldorado Stone had developed throughout many years, but it also set an example for the artificial stone industry. It was the first verdict in the industry to recognize that trade secrets exist as part of the manufacturing process.

Corning, Incorporated 

As one of the parent companies of Dow Corning, Corning was the target of more than 1,600 breast implant personal-injury claims. We served as Southern California counsel for Corning in the California Coordinated Proceedings, in which we obtained a summary judgment that resulted in the dismissal of all 1,600 claims.

Jack in the Box®

We have assisted this international restaurant chain in enforcing its franchise agreements in China, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Egypt.

City of San Diego v. Rider

The city promised the San Diego Chargers and the NFL that improvements to the San Diego stadium would be ready for the 1998 Super Bowl. That promise was thrown into doubt when a group of tax activists attacked the validity of the $60 million bond financing. To keep the construction on schedule, we developed a strategy for validating the bonds, obtained expedited review at all court levels and obtained a final, published opinion validating the bonds.

Patterson v. Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck

We represented a major Pittsburgh law firm in a suit brought by one of its partners who had filed a class-action suit against a national insurer in San Diego. To devote full time to the litigation, the partner had unilaterally moved to San Diego, where he charged several hundred thousand dollars to the firm for living expenses. When the firm ordered him to return to Pittsburgh and ceased paying his expenses, he filed suit. We obtained a dismissal of the suit and enforcement of the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement. At the arbitration, we obtained an award reimbursing the firm for the expenses charged to it and a decision that awarded the attorneys' fees from the class action to the firm. The partner was dismissed from the partnership.

First Health, Inc.

We have represented the nation's largest third-party administrator of self-funded employee benefit plans in matters ranging from benefits claims to a pending suit by a competitor, which is the successor administrator of a major union health plan. The claim asserts First Health's unwillingness to help set up its claims processing operation doomed it to failure. In excess of $40 million is claimed as damages as a result of the plan being returned to First Health.

Appellate Matters

A Fortune 500 manufacturer

The manufacturer, who had lost a jury verdict for product liability and destroying evidence called us five days before its opening appellate brief was due. As new counsel, we obtained a 25-day extension, read the 4,000-page record and filed a timely brief. The court reversed the judgment for destroying evidence and granted a new trial on the product liability aspect of the case.

1111 Prospect Partners v. Security Bank of Kansas City

A Kansas bank sued our clients in its hometown court. We removed the case to a federal court, where the U.S. District Judge incorrectly decided our client had waived its right to move to a federal court when it signed the underlying contract. In an expedited appeal, we persuaded the circuit court that the district judge must keep the case. Back in the district court, we obtained summary judgment in favor of the client.