The ultimate test of our counsel is trial by jury. There is no threat of more meaning than the proverbial phrase "I'll see you in court!" We are mindful that our recommendations prior to litigation will often set the stage for trial. Any letter of import should be written with an eye to its potential impact before a jury, should a dispute arise. In this age of contractual arbitration clauses and Alternative Dispute Resolution, we are faced with an erosion of our right to a jury trial. The Law Firm of Kaiser & Swindells arbitrates countless disputes and approaches this forum in a much different manner. Jury verdicts and binding arbitration awards are public pronouncements, and as such these results are customarily published by reporting agencies.

DEFENSE VERDICT IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION The superior court case of Clark v. Our Client Transit Company, Case No. NC 027316 proceeded to jury trial before the Honorable Tracy Moreno in April 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that our defendant negligently caused the death of their son, a wheelchair-bound advocate for the disabled. After a lengthy trial on the issue of causation, we prevailed in our defense of the wrongful death action. Our law firm engaged the services of four excellent expert witnesses, Dr. Vasile (a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation), Dr. Wachtel (a pulmonologist), Dr. Appel (a cardiologist) and Dr. Asarnow (a psychologist).	DEFENSE VERDICT IN JONES ACT CASE The case of Luke v. Our Client Ocean Transportation Company, Case No. NC 022569 went to trial before the Honorable James Wright in July of 1999. Mr. Luke's counsel argued that our defendant was liable under the Jones Act. Jones Act liability is analogous to a maritime theory of negligence. The plaintiff had been launching a lifeboat under the Chief Mate's supervision, when the tricing pendant prematurely released. Mr. Luke consequently fell into the sea, 60 feet below, allegedly causing a herniated disc. The jury ruled in favor of our client after a 7-day trial.
DEFENSE VERDICT IN BROKER DISPUTE The trial of Romero v. Our Client Packaging Co., Case No. BC 192883 came before a jury in August 1999 before the Honorable James Dunn. The plaintiff averred that our packing company improperly stole his largest account, resulting in $500,000 lost profits. The co-defendant settled before trial. After a 5-day trial, the jurors sided with our client and we received a defense verdict.	PLAINTIFF VERDICT IN CONTRACT DISPUTE The case of City Service v. Olen Properties, Case No. 808318 was heard by a jury in Orange County before the Honorable Ronald Kline in July of 2000. Our client sued to recover on an asphalt paving job in Placentia. On the eve of trial, the defendant unilaterally paid $54,000 to our client with no strings attached (under the erroneous belief that owed no more). After an 11-day trial, the jury awarded our client an additional $66,664 in contract damages. Pre-trial and trial attorney fees, costs and expert fees eventually brought our client's total recovery to $238,535. Jury verdict upheld on Appeal and additional appellate attorney fees of $38,000 allowed. Our post trial motion to declare Olen Commercial, Realty Services Corp. and First OCR Corp. alter egos and to amend Judgment granted by Judge Andrew Banks on March 28, 2003. Other post judgment attorney fees of over $42,000 were also awarded. The case finally settled in October, 2004, for an additional $340,000 payment.
A.A.A. DEFENSE AWARD IN HOME SALE We represented a realtor in binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in March of 2000, after the plaintiffs filed a superior court lawsuit, Case No. NC 016765. The co-defendant sellers settled before the adjudication. The plaintiffs, as buyers of a home, alleged that our realtor should have reported soil stability problems. They claimed massive expenses to stabilize the hillside, backyard pool and residence. After a 3-day hearing before arbitrator Stephen Backus, we received a defense arbitration award.	PLAINTIFF VERDICT FOR MARBLE YARD ACCIDENT In April of 1998, Our Client v. Glomati/Globe Marble, Case No. EC 012107 went to trial in Burbank before Judge Carl West. Our law firm represented the injured claimant and his wife. Our client, as a prospective purchaser, had leaned back a slab of marble while on defendant's business premises, to observe the pattern. The slabs shifted and pinned our plaintiff to the ground, crushing his left ankle. After a 6-day jury trial, we secured a total verdict, expert fees and costs of $742,934. Such sum was paid in full.
PEDESTRIAN v. BUS, BUS WINS The Honorable Richard Charvat sat in judgment over Quest v. Our Client Public Transportation Company, Case No. CN 020895 in April of 1999. Mr. Quest alleged that he was crossing the street at Ocean Boulevard and Linden in the City of Long Beach, when our defendant bus operator negligently turned right, colliding with him. Plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert Timothy Reust was not aware of key Long Beach Police Department photographs taken at the scene. Our law firm called a surprise witness from City of Long Beach Gas Company, refuting the claimant's version of his activities immediately prior to the accident. After a 6-day court trial, our client received a defense verdict.	ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS UPHELD In two separate matters, our Homeowner Association clients denied requests by owners for architectural variances. A dispute over a proposed 220 square foot rear yard balcony arose in Sipprelle v. Our Client Homeowner Association, Case No. NC 030582, The Association denied the proposed balcony under Dolan - King. Judge Ong issued judgment for the Association after a four day court trial in November of 2002. In the other case, entitled Hansen v. Our Client Homeowner Association, an asphalt composition shake roof was the subject of a binding arbitration hearing before Arbitrator Paul Bent on September 29, 2003. The owner complained that Our Client Homeowner Association had approved an identical roof material before. The association prevailed in its denial of this architectural variance submission, under the business judgment rule.
DEFENSE TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION Our law firm represented the defendant in Brown v. Our Client, Case No. BC 275337, facing charges that he had maliciously prosecuted an unsuccessful contact claim at trial against both individual plaintiffs. The 8 day jury trial was held before Judge Dunn in downtown Los Angeles in October of 2003. After numerous witnesses, the jury appreciated our arguments in defense and rendered a defense verdict.	TWO QUIET TITLE ACTIONS Our law firm prevailed in two lawsuits seeking to establish ownership of real property. In Aceves v. Our Client, Case No. NC 031703, Judge Sutton declared our client to be the actual owner of commercial property, even though he had given a family member a Quitclaim Deed years earlier (March of 2003). In McLeod v. Our Clients, Case No. BC 277109, Judge Susan Bryant-Deason ruled in our clients' favor after a bitterly contested three day trial in May of 2003. Later, our firm successfully pursued an Unlawful Detainer action, Case No. 03L02022 to remove all tenants from the premises.