Gregory M. Gentile

Gregory M. Gentile: Attorney with Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation AV stamp icon
Attorney Awards

Biography

Experience

Gregory M. Gentile is a partner in the firm's San Jose office and a member of the firm's Real Estate Practice Group. Mr. Gentile is an experienced litigator who has handled a wide spectrum of legal matters and disputes. Mr. Gentile's practice primarily focuses on real estate, business, and commercial matters. Throughout his legal career, he has represented real estate and commercial agents, brokers, buyers and sellers in a wide variety of real property and business disputes including disclosure and contract issues, property line disputes, commercial real estate issues and partition actions. He has also represented both landlord and tenant in residential and commercial lease disputes. Mr. Gentile has been a guest lecturer for the San Jose and Monterey chapters of the Real Estate Appraisal Institute, lecturing on issues surrounding professional liability within the context of real estate appraisals. He is a member of the Santa Clara County Bar Real Property Law Section and is also a member of its Executive Committee.

Mr. Gentile is a member of the California State Bar, the Santa Clara County Bar Association and the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada (ADC). He received his Bachelor of Arts in both English and History from Rhode Island College (magna cum laude) and was awarded the Claiborne Pell Medal for Excellence in American History. He received his J.D. from Golden Gate University Law School in San Francisco. Mr. Gentile holds the highest AV Rating by Martindale-Hubbell.

He is a proud member of the Los Gatos Rotary and participates in community projects, including the Los Gatos based St. Luke's homeless service and out-reach and the San Jose based Sacred Heart Community out-reach to under-privileged San Jose families.

News

•Commercial Real Estate: How to protect your interests when selling a business
Smart Business Magazine - April 15, 2014
Gregory M. Gentile

Areas of Practice (13)

  • Business And Commercial Litigation
  • Construction
  • Corporate Transactions
  • ERISA
  • Intellectual Property
  • Product Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Civil Rights
  • Real Estate
  • Fraud
  • Breach of Contract
  • Real Estate Brokers and Agent Liability
  • Professional Services

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
408-918-4554  Phone
408-918-4501  Fax
www.rmkb.com
University Attended:
Rhode Island College, B.A., magna cum laude, 1979
Law School Attended:
Golden Gate University School of Law, J.D., 1989
Year of First Admission:
1989
Admission:
USDC: Eastern District of California; USDC: Northern District of California; 1989, California
Memberships:

Memberships & Associations

•Santa Clara County Bar Association
•Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada (ADCNC)

Reported Cases:
Representative Experience: Negligence; Misrepresentation; Alameda County Superior Court; Plaintiff Private Client/ Homeowner; Construction, Fraud, Insurance Services, Real Estate; Successfully represented homeowners in prosecuting their claims for construction defects against a general contractor and failure to disclose by the seller. The clients alleged that the general contractor failed to properly build exterior decks on a custom home, and the seller failed to disclose to the clients' known defects about those decks, including water leaks into the home. The seller and the general contractor aggressively sought to have the clients' case dismissed, and brought several dispositive motions just prior to trial.; Successfully defeated both motions and obtained a large settlement for our clients.; Construction Defects; Los Angeles County Superior Court; Defendant Fire Sprinkler Manufacturer; Construction; Successfully defended a fire sprinkler subcontractor in a large scale construction defect matter at binding arbitration. The claims involved construction defects with respect to a youth athletic club in Southern Los Angeles. The client was a subcontractor who allegedly had improperly installed fire sprinklers as part of the reconstruction of the club. Following an eight-week arbitration, the arbitrator ruled that the claims against the client lacked merit, and the firm obtained a judgment in favor of the client and against the general contractor.; Defended the claims and obtained a judgment in favor of our client.; Breach of Contract; Breach of Loan Agreement; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Defendants Mortgage Broker/Chubb Insured; Business And Commercial Litigation, Professional Liability; Successfully defended claims brought by borrowers against a mortgage broker and a lender for fraud, breach of contract, racial discrimination and invasion of privacy. The plaintiff borrowers asserted that their loan was procured by the fraud of the mortgage brokers and lenders. The lawsuit commenced in Federal District Court and was then remanded to State Court. Following discovery, we successfully brought a motion for summary judgment, removing clients from the case.; The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff borrowers, and we thereafter defended the appeal at the appellate level. The Sixth District Appellate Court affirmed the judgment in favor of clients.; Breach of Contract; Negligence; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Plaintiff; Purchaser of Manufactured Home; Business And Commercial Litigation; Successfully arbitrated and obtained a judgment for a client attendant to claims against a general contractor for failure to relocate a manufactured home pursuant to an agreement. The claims against the general contractor were breach of contract, negligence and fraud (misrepresentation). The facts showed that the general contractor failed to perform as he was required, and in fact, abandoned his duties to the client.; The claims were submitted to a binding arbitration, and the client was awarded substantial damages including attorney's fees as the prevailing party.; TRO/Injunctive Relief Due to Threatening Conduct; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Law Firm; Business And Commercial Litigation, Civil Rights; Opposition party in pending real estate litigation with clients of firm made threatening comments by voice-mail to attorney. Given the past experience with the party, a restraining order was sought and obtained following a court trial before the Honorable Derek Woodhouse. Opposition party has filed an appeal.; Following a court trial in which testimony was taken and evidence received, the Court granted the restraining order.; Trespass; Nuisance; Declaratory Relief; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Plaintiff Private Client/Homeowner; Real Estate; Successfully prosecuted and defended a homeowner in a property line dispute with her neighbor. The claims by the client were for trespass, nuisance, and quiet title. Through expert opinion, we were able to secure the client's property rights and obtain appropriate resolution, returning the property to her.; The matter settled five days before trial with an agreement to return the expropriated real property back to the client.; construction contracts; executed change orders; mechanic's lien; construction delay; lost profits; fire protection alarm design; San Diego County Superior Court; Specialty Construction - Fire Protection and Alarm Design and Construction; Construction; Siry Investments/1835 Columbia (Siry) was performing an extensive remodel to a boutique hotel in San Diego. Siry contracted with Cosco to design and install the fire protection and alarm systems and with design professionals D'Amato Conversato, Inc. (DCI) and Salehi Engineering, Inc. (Salehi). Cosco issued and executed approximately 16 change orders, many of which Siry refused to sign or pay for. Cosco filed a breach of contract/mechanic's lien foreclosure action against Siry. Siry filed a cross-complaint against Cosco and a separate action against DCI and Salehi for breach of their contracts, which allegedly cost millions of dollars in extra costs and lost profits. All actions were consolidated for trial. The jury found in favor of Cosco, DCI, and Salehi on all claims. Cosco was awarded the full amount of its damages.; Siry abandoned its appeal against Cosco and satisfied the Cosco Judgment of approximately $98,000; Intellectual Property; Breach of Contract; Defamation; Fraud; Misrepresentation; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Defendant Private Client; Business And Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property; Successfully represented a local business entrepreneur in a complex partnership dispute between two joint venturers involving intellectual property. The claims were for breach of contract, defamation and fraud. Prosecuted those claims on behalf of the client while defending claims of misrepresentation and conversion. Defended the client at binding arbitration, obtaining a large monetary award from the arbitrator.; Defensed the case at a binding arbitration and successfully prosecuted claims of client.; Negligence; Misrepresentation; San Mateo County Superior Court; Defendant Home Inspection Company; Business And Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property, Real Estate; Successfully represented a home inspection company and home inspector as to claims of negligence and misrepresentation. The claims against the clients were part of a group litigation filed by a homeowner against the real estate agents, their brokers and inspectors who were involved in the sale of the home. The homeowner claimed undisclosed and undocumented defects pertaining to their purchase of their home.; Successfully resolved the matter on behalf of the clients by bringing a motion for summary judgment.; Real Estate Commission Dispute; Breach of Contract; Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage; San Mateo County Superior Court; Defendant Private Client; Business And Commercial Litigation; Successfully represented a commercial business broker in a claim for broker's commission. The claim was that the client and others interfered with another broker's business relationship and defrauded him from his commission. The plaintiff's lawsuit was fraught with a variety of legal issues involving statute of limitations and contractual defenses.; Brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which ultimately led the way to an expedient resolution of the matter for the client based on the available legal defenses.; Trespass; Nuisance; Quiet Title as to Real Property; Property Lines; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Plaintiff Homeowner; Real Estate; Successfully prosecuted a neighbor and defended a homeowner in a property line dispute. The claims made were for trespass, nuisance and quiet title.; Through expert opinion, able to secure the client's property rights and obtain appropriate resolution, returning the property to client.; Adverse Possession; Quiet Title; Easement Preparation; Santa Clara County Superior Court; Plaintiff, Home and Property Owner; Breach of Contract, Real Estate; Client sued for adverse possession and quiet title as against developers. Thereafter multiple cross-complaints were filed against client, each of which sought to quiet title. Case was laden with discovery issues and had multiple depositions prior to trial. Matter was interlaced with breach of contract between two separate developers which was tried before the court in a 15 day court trial.; Court trial of developer found developer to be in default for failing to proceed with trial after 15 days of court testimony. Judgment entered against developer by the court. Thereafter, a further motion was filed on behalf of our clients which resulted in judgments in their favor and against the developer. Matter is on the process of appeal.; Products Liability; Automatic Doors; Retail; Alameda County Superior Court; Defendant/Client Door Manufacturer; Premises Liability, Product Liability; Plaintiff claimed to be struck by an automatic door at a grocery store in Pleasanton, California. Represented door manufacturing company that maintained and inspected the doors.; Favorable settlement at mediation on behalf of both Besam and Safeway, one moth prior to trial.
ISLN:
907146436

Peer Reviews

4.7/5.0 (28 reviews)
High ethical standing icon
A Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating reflects a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.
  • Legal Knowledge

    4.7/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.7/5.0
  • Judgment

    4.7/5.0
  • Communication

    4.7/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    4.7/5.0
  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Managing Partner on 05/13/16 in Breach of Contract

    Excellent attorney, superb at civil litigation, highest integrity and very smart.

    Excellent attorney, superb at civil litigation, highest integrity and very smart. Read less

    Read less
  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Sole Practitioner on 05/05/16 in Real Estate

    Mr. Gentile has decades of experience in commercial and residential transactions and litigation. He is highly regarded in our legal community for his sense of professional ethics, his aggressive approach to litigation, and his realistic approach to... Read more

    Read more

    Mr. Gentile has decades of experience in commercial and residential transactions and litigation. He is highly regarded in our legal community for his sense of professional ethics, his aggressive approach to litigation, and his realistic approach to dispute resolution. He is a very strong advocate for his clients. Read less

    Read less

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

San Jose, California

Contact Gregory M. Gentile

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.