Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Mary Kaufman, Peter Scott Named 2018 “Super Lawyers” Southern California Rising Stars
Category: Awards | Friday, June 15th, 2018 | Comments Off on Mary Kaufman, Peter Scott Named 2018 “Super Lawyers” Southern California Rising Stars
The firm is pleased to announce that Mary Kaufman and Peter Scott have been selected by Thomson Reuters as 2018 Southern California “Super Lawyers” Rising Stars. The “Rising Stars” distinction honors attorneys under the age of 40 in the Southern California region who earned the highest point totals in the “Rising Stars” nomination, research and blue ribbon review process.
Steve Ma Speaks at NAPABA Panel on Trademarks and Copyright Law
Category: Events | Tuesday, June 12th, 2018 | Comments Off on Steve Ma Speaks at NAPABA Panel on Trademarks and Copyright Law
Steve Ma recently spoke as a panelist for a webinar hosted by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) entitled “Hot Topics in Trademark and Copyright Law.” Steve’s presentation including analysis and commentary regarding the recent “Blurred Lines” appellate decision (Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Christian Gaye, et al., 885 F. 3d 1150 (9th Circuit 2018); the proposed California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018; and Blockchain applications in entertainment and digital media. Steve currently serves as Co-Chair of NAPABA’s Entertainment Law Committee.
‘Stranger Things’ Creators Accused Of Stealing Netflix Show’s Concept – Forbes
Category: News, Uncategorized | Thursday, April 19th, 2018 | Comments Off on ‘Stranger Things’ Creators Accused Of Stealing Netflix Show’s Concept – Forbes
Bryan Sullivan’s article “‘Stranger Things’ Creators Accused Of Stealing Netflix Show’s Concept” was published on Forbes on April 19, 2018. In the article, Bryan discusses the lawsuit accusing the Duffer Brothers of stealing the idea for Netflix’s hit show “Stranger Things,” and how the case may come down to whether the plaintiff made an offer to the Duffers to buy his idea.
To read the full article, click here.
Devin McRae Speaks at WestLegalEd Panel on Disney, Redbox Dispute
Category: Events, News | Monday, April 9th, 2018 | Comments Off on Devin McRae Speaks at WestLegalEd Panel on Disney, Redbox Dispute
Devin McRae recently spoke on the West LegalEd Center panel “‘Begun, the Code War Has!’ Disney and Redbox Battle Over Digital Movie Codes,” which took place on February 24, 2018. During the panel, copyright experts Devin McRae of Early Sullivan, Robert Rotstein of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP and Aaron J. Moss of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP discussed the complex issues of copyright, contract, and unfair competition at hand in the ongoing lawsuit between Disney and Redbox over the latter’s selling of digital movie codes.
For more information, see the full program on NewMediaNow! and West LegalEd Center (subscription or payment required).
Early Sullivan Prevails at Trial in Breach of Loan Agreement Case
Category: News, Results | Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Prevails at Trial in Breach of Loan Agreement Case
Scott Gizer, Diane Luczon and Zachary Gidding secured a decision in favor of their client Mazakoda, Inc. for breach of a loan agreement following a bench trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff Mazakoda, Inc. had alleged that it provided a loan to defendants J&J Oil, Shawn Melamed, Edmond Melamed, Jenous Tootian and Rozita Safaeipour for $500,000, which the defendants failed to pay back. However, the promissory note was lost and only an unsigned copy of the promissory note could be found. Defendants attempted to argue that they never signed the promissory note and that the money they received was not a loan, but a settlement payment to resolve a dispute between the parties. Following a bench trial before the Honorable Daniel Murphy, the Court ruled in favor of Early Sullivan’s client, Mazakoda, finding the preponderance of the evidence supported Mazakoda’s case and that the defendants were not credible witnesses. Mazakoda was awarded its full loan balance of over $900,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs incurred and issued an order permitting Mazakoda to judicially foreclose on the Defendants’ property.
Click “Download PDF” for the court’s decision.
Early Sullivan Obtains Defense Verdict in Favor of Sun West for Alleged RESPA Violations
Category: News, Press, Results | Monday, March 5th, 2018 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Obtains Defense Verdict in Favor of Sun West for Alleged RESPA Violations
Scott Gizer, along with Diane Luczon, recently achieved an outstanding result on behalf of the firm’s client, defendant Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc., in lawsuit where the plaintiff had alleged that Sun West had violated certain RESPA provisions when it force-placed flood insurance on plaintiff’s behalf. Specifically, the plaintiff had alleged that Sun West failed to follow the requirements of the Florida Insurance Code when procuring the force-placed insurance, which in turn violated Section 2605 of RESPA. Following a Bench Trial in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Judge Robin Rosenberg found in favor of Sun West holding that the plaintiff could not use section 2605 of RESPA to assert of violation of the Florida Insurance Code when the Florida legislature had not provided for a private right action. The decision, which was covered in RESPA News, was of critical importance to lenders because it limits the ability of plaintiffs to use RESPA to assert violations of State statutes that a plaintiff would not be able to sue directly under.
The full article from RESPA News is below.
Florida court rules on extent of RESPA private right of action
In a case involving a reverse mortgage which fell into foreclosure proceedings, a lender purchased forced-placed insurance on the property. After the borrower brought her account current through a Florida government program and the foreclosure complaint was dismissed, she sued the lender and the insurance intermediary for RESPA violations.
The borrower alleged to a Florida district court that the force-placed rates charged were not bona fide and reasonable under RESPA because the procedure for obtaining the rates violated state regulations.
The district judge ruled that RESPA contains only three private rights of action, and the borrower could not “bootstrap” the state regulations through another cause of action.
The case is Michelina Iaffaldano v. Sun West Mortgage Co. and Proctor Financial (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 17-cv-14222).
Scott Gizer, the lead attorney for Sun West on the case and a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, told RESPA News the ruling was significant.
“If plaintiff’s argument was accepted, plaintiffs could use section 2605 of RESPA to assert claims far beyond those three areas,” he said. “The judge’s decision is important because it prevents plaintiffs from using state statutes to create new causes of action where no private right of action was intended.”
In the ruling, District Judge Robin Rosenberg described the three private rights of action in RESPA under established law:
Payment of a kickback and unearned fees for real estate settlement services;
Requiring a buyer to use a title insurer selected by the seller; and
The failure of a loan servicer to provide proper notice about the transfer of loan servicing rights or to respond to a qualified written request for loan information under Section 2605(e).
None of those acts were alleged by Iaffaldano, though, with the court saying the allegations were that Sun West failed to advance insurance premiums on her behalf through an escrow account in violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.17 and that the force-placed rates charged were not bona fide and reasonable because the procedure for obtaining those rates violated Florida Insurance Code Section 626.916.
“However, it has been expressly held that 12 C.F.R. § 1024.17, governing escrow accounts, does not create a private right of action for alleged negligence with respect to the administration and maintenance of an escrow account,” Rosenberg wrote, citing Perron v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A, (S.D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2014). “Likewise, it has been held that 12 C.F.R. § 1024.37 does not create a private right of action. Wing Kei Ho v. Bank of Am., N.A., (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2016).”
That logic, Rosenberg wrote, extended to the allegation of bona fide and reasonable charges, because section 626.916 does not create a private right of action – which Iaffaldano did not dispute in the case.
“A plaintiff may not plead around this bar by trying to bootstrap section 626.916 through another cause of action,” Rosenberg wrote, citing Lemy v. Direct Gen. Fin. Co., (M.D. Fla. 2012). “In Lemy v. Direct General Finance Company, the court held that while certain sections of the Florida insurance code provide for a private remedy, section 626.916 is not one of those sections.”
Rosenberg wrote that the court in Lemy explained that “a plaintiff ‘may not evade the Florida legislature’s decision to withhold a statutory cause of action’ for a violation of the insurance code ‘by asserting common law claims based on such violations.’ ”
The Lemy decision focused on common law claims under Florida law, but Rosenberg ruled the reasoning applied would be applicable to a federal cause of action.
“In other words, the court fails to see how a federal RESPA claim could be premised upon an alleged violation of a Florida regulatory statute which contains no private right of action,” Rosenberg wrote.
In fact, the court asked for guidance to case law where it did, and found none.
“The court expressly asked counsel for Iaffaldano to provide case law for the proposition that her RESPA claim could be premised on a Florida statute which lacked a private right of action, and counsel was unable to provide any authority to the court,” Rosenberg wrote. “For these reasons, Iaffaldano has not established that a private right of action exists for any of the RESPA violations she alleges have occurred.”
Iaffaldano also brought an allegation of tortious interference with a business relationship against Proctor, but Rosenberg ruled the claim failed because “the record evidence shows that Proctor did not intentionally or unjustifiably interfere with Iaffaldano’s relationship with Sun West.”
Early Sullivan Successfully Defends Its Client Against $12.5 Million Claim
Category: News, Results | Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Successfully Defends Its Client Against $12.5 Million Claim
Early Sullivan attorneys Mary Kaufman and Zachary Gidding successfully defended, with Scott Gizer, a quiet title action for Defendant CFIC-2014 NV FI-PSC, LLC (“CFIC”) in the Nevada District Court Case entitled LLV Holdco, LLC v. Atalon Management Group LLC, et al, where they prevailed on summary judgment.
CFIC purchased vacant lots of land in 2014 for $12.5 million from other defendants, who the Plaintiffs alleged fraudulently induced the Plaintiffs to waive their right of first refusal to purchase those lots in 2012. Plaintiffs sought to quiet title to the subject property against CFIC.
CFIC defended the claim on the ground it was a bona fide purchaser with no knowledge of the purported fraudulent conduct of one of the other defendants, and further argued that even if CFIC was under a duty of inquiry regarding the waiver that Plaintiffs signed in 2012, CFIC should still prevail because, based on key testimony obtained by Early Sullivan, Plaintiffs’ board members admitted that if CFIC had approached the Plaintiffs about the waiver, the Plaintiffs would have confirmed its validity.
The Court agreed with Early Sullivan’s client CFIC and granted its motion for summary judgment.
Four Early Sullivan Attorneys Named 2018 Southern California “Super Lawyers”
Category: News, Press | Wednesday, January 31st, 2018 | Comments Off on Four Early Sullivan Attorneys Named 2018 Southern California “Super Lawyers”
The firm is pleased to announce that several of its attorneys have been selected by Thomson Reuters as 2018 Southern California “Super Lawyers.” The “Super Lawyers” distinction is given annually to the nation’s most outstanding attorneys, based on peer recognition, professional achievement, and independent research. Only the top 5% of lawyers in each state are selected to receive this honor.
The following attorneys have been recognized as “Super Lawyers” for their expertise in these practice areas:
Eric Early – Business Litigation, Entertainment & Sports, Securities Litigation (2005-2018)
Stephen Ma – Business Litigation (2014-2018)
Devin McRae – Entertainment & Sports, Intellectual Property Litigation, Business Litigation (2016-2018)
Bryan Sullivan – Entertainment & Sports, Business Litigation, Business/Corporate (2015-2018)
Early Sullivan Named “Business Litigation Law Firm of the Year” by Lawyers Worldwide Awards Magazine
Category: News | Tuesday, January 30th, 2018 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Named “Business Litigation Law Firm of the Year” by Lawyers Worldwide Awards Magazine
The firm is pleased to announce it has been named “Business Litigation Law Firm of the Year – USA” in Lawyers Worldwide Awards Magazine’s “Super Lawyers” edition for 2018. Each year, Lawyers Worldwide Awards Magazine honors a select number of leading firms that have continually displayed a high degree of quality, tenacity and ability to punch above their weight within their area of specialization and geographical location.
Devin McRae Quoted in Bloomberg on Wynn Divorce Battle
Category: News | Monday, January 29th, 2018 | Comments Off on Devin McRae Quoted in Bloomberg on Wynn Divorce Battle
Devin McRae was recently quoted in Edvard Pettersson’s Bloomberg article “Wynn Sexual Misconduct Allegations May Upend Trial With Ex-Wife,” and Christopher Palmeri and Valerie Miller’s article “Elaine Wynn Back in Spotlight as Ex-Husband Battles Allegations.” In both articles, Devin explains that the recent sexual misconduct allegations against Stephen Wynn will have a major impact on the ongoing divorce litigation between the casino mogul and his ex-wife.
“It’s a game-changer,” Devin says. “These allegations paint a picture of serious predation.”