In this case, the United States District Court found in favor of Berk Law Group, P.C.’s client that his employer breached its retirement plan contract by refusing to pay him benefits. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
9TH CURCUIT UPHOLDS EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AWARD
In its Memorandum Decision issued September 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the United States District Court, Arizona, award of employment benefits to the employee represented by Berk Law Group, P.C. The case involved whether the employee qualified for benefits under the applicable plans. After applying ordinary principles of contract interpretation, the District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the firm’s client was entitled to benefits.
FIRM WINS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CASE
In this case, Berk Law Group, P.C. represented the sellers of three “four-plex” apartment buildings. The buyers, a married couple from California, signed three separate contracts to buy the properties. When the buyers could not close escrow by the initial close of escrow deadline, the parties agreed to extend the deadline and the buyers agreed to deposit additional earnest money to be paid to the sellers as liquidated damages if the buyers did not close escrow by the new deadline. [Read more…]
BERK & MOSKOWITZ WINS OFFICE LEASE APPEAL
In this case, Berk & Moskowitz, P.C. began representing the tenant in a lease dispute case after the trial court ruled against the tenant and found that the tenant did not have the right to cancel an office lease. The firm filed an appeal on behalf of the tenant. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court and found that, given the clear language of the lease, that the tenant did have the right to terminate the lease. Berk & Moskowitz, P.C. recovered the tenant’s security deposit, costs, attorneys’ fees and interest.
INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE ON ASSIGNMENT
United States District Court Judge John W. Sedwick found in favor of the firm’s client against Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company for failing to honor an assignment of insurance proceeds. The firm represented an insurance adjuster who had received a partial assignment of proceeds from his client, the insured. The insurance company had refused to honor the assignment.
SELLERS’ AGENT LIABLE FOR NON-DISCLOSURE
In this case, the firm’s client purchased a home in North Scottsdale. Unbeknownst to her, the home had been used by the sellers to breed and kennel large numbers of dogs over several years. Upon moving into the home, the buyer’s daughter and grandson had severe allergic reactions. They subsequently discovered that the home was used to breed dogs, but that fact was not disclosed before the sale.
Berk Law Group, P.C. filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court against the sellers and their agent, Century 21. After trial, Judge Peter Reinstein found in favor of the buyer and assessed 95% of the fault to Century 21 for not disclosing the history of the home. The Judge awarded the seller full diminution in value caused by the prior use.
INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE FOR STIPULATED JUDGMENT
John Impellizzeri (the firm’s client) was the Plaintiff and Kenneth Sloniger was the Defendant in a lawsuit brought by Impellizzeri for Sloniger’s misrepresentations and errors in selling Impellizzeri certain life insurance. Sloniger’s insurance company defended him in the claims, but reserved rights to deny coverage. Because of the reservation of rights, Sloniger was partially released from his duty to cooperate with the insurer and entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Impellizzeri. [Read more…]
FIRM WINS FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST SELLER AND AGENT
Berk Law Group, P.C. filed a lawsuit for its clients against the sellers and their real estate agent for failing to disclose that the property was used to breed and kennel large numbers of dogs. The problem was discovered when the buyer’s daughter and grandson suffered severe allergic reactions to the home.
The Court found for the firm’s clients, and concluded that the real estate agent was 95% at fault and the seller was 5% at fault, and awarded the buyer the payment of $60,000, representing the difference between the purchase price and the value of the property at the time of close of escrow, plus attorneys’ fees.
OGLE V. RICHMOND
This case involved the liability of an Arizona couple’s marital community under a contract that was subject to Georgia law. In the case, a Georgia husband (Ogle) and an Arizona husband (Richmond) executed a contract in Georgia, that was to be performed in Georgia, and that specified it was to be governed by Georgia law. The parties subsequently sued each other, and their wives, in Arizona. Berk & Moskowitz represented Ogle at trial. [Read more…]
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 17
- 18
- 19