LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD HART

· .Asociacion de Productores, Empacadores Y Export Adores de Aguacate de Michoacan, A.C. (“APEAM”) v. State of California (2008). Lead litigation counsel in this pending State Court action to enforce international trade regulations governing avocado export from  Mexico into California.

· APEAM v. the California Avocado Commission (2008).  This pending Federal Court litigation challenges commercial disparagement by California Avocado growers of Hass avocadoes grown in Michoacan, Mexico, approved for APEAM importation into the United States by the USDA.

· Shade v. Johannus (2007).  Successfully represented APEAM, whose members supply 70% of the world’s avocado market, in Federal Court in the Central District of Los Angeles.

· City of South Lake Tahoe, California v. Bailey (December 2007).  Jury verdict obtained for clients against the city of South Lake Tahoe in eminent domain action.

· Ahmadzai v. Bryant (April 2006) Complex sale of business.  Judgment entered in favor of client (defendant) after trial in San Mateo County.  Judgment affirmed on appeal by the California Supreme Court (2007).

· Great American v. Short (2005) Legal malpractice insurance coverage case conducted in San Bernardino Superior Court leading to judgment for client (insured). After judgment for the insurer in a separate Declaratory Relief case, (which held notice from the insured third party failed to invoke coverage under an Errors and Omission policy) a successful appeal resulted in a reversal by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.

· Ingerson v. Sears & Roebuck (2004)  Represented plaintiffs in a containment case which was favorably settled against Sears & Roebuck and several of its carriers.

· Slater Farms, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture (2001)  This case arose from failure of the Federal Government to properly maintain flood levies adjacent to the Slater Farms properties in the Sacramento Delta.  A United States District judge sitting for the United States Court of Federal Claims presided over the trial.  The case was resolved for client in trial.

ACWA-JPIA v. CNA (1996) Insurance Bad Faith.  After a month long Federal trial, a jury verdict was entered in favor of the Association of California Water Agencies and other client plaintiffs in an insurance bad faith case.  The jury verdict on behalf of client was upheld on appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Representative Trial and Litigation Work