Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Month: June, 2026
Early Sullivan Named to 2026 “Law Firms List” by the Los Angeles Business Journal
Category: Awards, News | Monday, June 29th, 2026 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Named to 2026 “Law Firms List” by the Los Angeles Business Journal
Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae is pleased to announce that the firm was recently honored by the Los Angeles Business Journal on its 2026 “Law Firms List.” The list annually recognizes the most highly regarded law firms in the Los Angeles region. Describing this year’s honorees, the LABJ notes, “In such a large and highly competitive legal market with thousands of firms across the region, being included on the List is an important distinction and strong recognition of a firm’s presence in the Los Angeles legal community.”
Read the full list in the Los Angeles Business Journal (subscription required):
2026 Top Law Firms – Los Angeles Business Journal
Early Sullivan Obtains Defense Verdict in Jury Trial for First American Title Insurance
Category: Results, Results | Friday, June 12th, 2026 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Obtains Defense Verdict in Jury Trial for First American Title Insurance
Scott Gizer, Lisa Boswell and Jessica Detering prevailed on behalf of Early Sullivan client First American Title Insurance Company in a bad faith action arising out of a neighbor dispute in the City of Sierra Madre. Following a two-week trial, the jury delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of First American. The lawsuit centered around a dispute between Plaintiffs and their neighbors, both of which were insured by First American, over certain improvements of the neighbors that encroached onto Plaintiffs’ property.
Plaintiffs sued their neighbors to have the encroachments removed and the neighbors tendered a claim to First American, which was accepted and counsel appointed to defend against the claim as well as assert a cross-complaint for an easement. Plaintiffs then tendered the defense of the cross-complaint to First American, which First American accepted, but elected to pay Plaintiffs for the loss of the property at issue as opposed to defending the claim. Plaintiffs argued that First American’s decision to defend one insured and payout the other was improper as it allegedly favored one insured over the other.
Mr. Gizer, Ms. Boswell and Ms. Detering put on evidence that when First American insures both sides of a dispute each claim is handled independently to avoid any claims of favoritism and that such was the case with Plaintiffs and their neighbors. The Early Sullivan trial team put on further evidence that electing to defend the neighbors and making a payout to the Plaintiffs was reasonable based on the facts of each claim since it was unlikely that the Plaintiffs would be able to prevail against their neighbors. Further, First American at various times encouraged Plaintiffs to settle their dispute and not continue with litigation for this exact reason.
Ultimately, Plaintiffs lost their lawsuit against their neighbors, but blamed First American for the result seeking damages of more than $1.5 million. After hearing all the evidence, the jury deliberated for two hours and found against Plaintiffs on all claims. The case is Cesar Romero and Tatana Romero v. First American Title Insurance Company, Los Angeles County Case No. BC656649.
View the filed special verdict here.
Bryan Sullivan Speaks to Law360 on Patagonia’s Ongoing Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Drag Queen Pattie Gonia
Category: News, Press | Friday, June 5th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks to Law360 on Patagonia’s Ongoing Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Drag Queen Pattie Gonia
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke with Law360 about American retailer Patagonia suing drag queen and activist Pattie Gonia, who filed a trademark application to use their full drag name for the purposes of selling merchandise. The article, titled “Is Pattie Gonna Get Out Of This? Patagonia’s IP And PR Pickle,” outlines that while Patagonia supports Pattie Gonia’s advocacy for issues like environmentalism and LGBTQ+ rights, the brand maintains that the drag name could confuse consumers and interfere with the Patagonia brand.
The trademark infringement suit has gained public interest from both intellectual property and popular culture standpoints. While this may cause PR headaches, trademark attorneys agree that IP enforcement and public relations management will not always be in perfect alignment.
Bryan sheds light on why the enforcement pressure in trademark law may not be obvious to the general public.
“Nonlawyers and nontrademark people would probably jump in and accuse Patagonia of being a bully, but [the company is] obligated to enforce their trademark,” Bryan tells Law360.
He goes on to explain that if Patagonia decides not to enforce its trademark, it could raise the risk of arguments of selective enforcement.
“If there are too many instances of them not enforcing the trademark, there are arguments against them if they try to enforce it. It can’t be selective enforcement,” he concludes.
Read the full article in Law360 (Subscription required).