News & Events
Green & Hall Names Suzanne Launi and John Roussas as New Partners
Green & Hall has named Suzanne M. Launi and John G. Roussas as partners in the firm effective January 1, 2011.
Ms. Launi joined Green & Hall's Orange County office in 2007 and has focused her practice on the representation of builders and general contractors in construction-related litigation. Her practice also includes the representation of real estate brokers and title companies in a broad range of disputes.
Mr. Roussas joined the firm's Roseville office in 2006. His practice focuses on construction-related litigation with an emphasis on construction defect and catastrophic workplace personal injuries. He also advises owners and lenders regarding the foreclosure and receiver process.
California Land Title Assn. Successfully Defended by Green & Hall
January 2011 - Howard Hall and Markus Self successfully defended the California Land Title Association (“CLTA”) in a unique lawsuit pending in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. Plaintiff sued his title insurer and CLTA after the title insurer denied Plaintiff's title claim relating to an undisclosed underground easement. Although Plaintiff had not entered into any contract with CLTA, he argued unique theories for liability. He alleged that CLTA advertised on its website misleading and false representations about title insurance and title insurers' duties to reimburse insureds for covered losses. Plaintiff further alleged that CLTA is a trade organization for the entire title industry and, hence, effectively conspired with his title insurer to wrongfully deny Plaintiff's title claim. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages against CLTA for allegedly violating the Cartwright Act, disseminating false advertising and engaging in unfair competition.
CLTA's Demurrer to this complaint argued that each of Plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law: (i) CLTA could not be liable under an insurance policy to which CLTA was not a party; (ii) Plaintiff could not establish an unlawful conspiracy or that CLTA's advertising was false or misleading; and (iii) CLTA could not be required to disclose the easement because it was not recorded. Judge Dodie Harman adopted these arguments and sustained CLTA's Demurrer and denied Plaintiff the right to amend his complaint. This victory is an important step in the continued efforts to insulate the title industry (and, in this case, CLTA) from baseless lawsuits.
Overbroad Default Judgment Set Aside by Green & Hall
December 2010 – On behalf of Aurora Loan Services, LLC and MERS, Green & Hall set aside a default judgment entered in favor of a borrower that purported to wipe out a $1.5 million mortgage loan and deed of trust. The Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against his originating lender, without naming or giving notice to Aurora or MERS. Unfortunately, this judgment bound the original lender's successors and assigns and removed the deed of trust from Plaintiff's property. Our investigations revealed that Plaintiff withheld important title information in the course of obtaining his default judgment. We intervened and moved to set aside the judgment on the grounds that it violated our clients' due process rights. The Court recognized Plaintiff's misdeeds and decreed void the default judgment, securing a victory for Aurora and MERS. (This matter was handled by Howard Hall and Saul Wolf.)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC Bolsters MERS in Northern District of California
November 2010 -- In an action validating the role of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. in California's non-judicial foreclosure process, Green & Hall obtained an early dismissal for Aurora Loan Services, LLC. The action, Dancy v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116513 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010), had been removed to federal court. Sitting in diversity, District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong applied California's comprehensive statutory framework governing non-judicial foreclosure under a deed of trust and confirmed that MERS has the authority to initiate such non-judicial foreclosures in California. Aurora's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. This important ruling helps maintain the reliability and functionality of California's non-judicial foreclosure laws. (This matter was handled by Howard Hall and Saul Wolf.)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC Curtails Novel Contract Theory in Central District of California
October 2010 -- In a second-generation action centered upon plaintiffs' novel “intended third-party beneficiary” theory, Green & Hall obtained a decisive victory for client Aurora Loan Services, LLC. An unpublished opinion by District Judge John F. Walter joined a growing line of federal authority to hold that plaintiff borrowers are not intended third-party beneficiaries of, and thus have no standing to enforce, the HAMP agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae. Aurora's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiffs' action was dismissed with prejudice. (This matter was handled by Howard Hall, Michael Lisko and Nikita Shah.)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC and MERS Secure Victory in Eastern District of California
May 2010 -- In an action presenting an intricate question of federal subject matter jurisdiction, Green & Hall obtained a favorable ruling for clients Aurora Loan Services, LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The action, Almunir v. Aurora Loan Service, LLC et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51673 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2010), had been filed initially in state court. An opinion authored by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows, and later adopted by District Judge John A. Mendez, upheld Defendants' removal of the action to federal court and confirmed that a plaintiff may not cleverly plead state-law claims to extend the limitations periods found in the Truth in Lending Act. Such claims fall under the doctrine of “complete preemption,” which extends original subject matter jurisdiction to the federal court. Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. (This matter was handled by Howard Hall, Michael Lisko and Nhataly Vu.).
While defending the general contractor, Edward Huguenin and Ryan Meyer prevailed
While defending the general contractor, Edward Huguenin and Ryan Meyer prevailed in a 20-day binding arbitration concerning a commercial construction defect claim. The claimant sought nearly $2 million in damages arising from claims of construction defects, including claims of unfinished site work, disputed punch-list work, and a claim related to alleged roof moisture. The claimant was awarded nothing on the costly roof moisture claim and a de minimus amount on the remaining issues. Moreover, the general contractor was awarded the entirety of its counter-claim for unpaid retention.
Furthermore, as the prevailing party based on a Code of Civil Procedure § 998 Offer, the firm's client obtained a further award of expert fees and costs of approximately $375,000 against the claimant.
Green & Hall Obtains Dismissal of Class Action Against Builder
March 31, 2010 – Robert Green, Katherine Lizardo, and Stephanie Lemmon successfully petitioned the United States District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss with prejudice a class action brought against a publicly-held builder and its affiliated mortgage broker. At the height of the housing market, the plaintiffs bought new homes from the builder and financed their purchases through the affiliated mortgage broker. When their property values decreased in 2009, they filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of new homes from the builder who put at least 20% down towards the purchase of their properties at any time from 2004 through 2006, both in California and nationwide. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the builder misrepresented the value of their properties and failed to disclose the existence of certain unqualified and high-foreclosure-risk purchasers in their neighborhoods. The plaintiffs sought restitution as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
The builder filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action and therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). They claimed that the plaintiffs have not suffered any injury in fact and their purported reduced property values are conjectural, at best. They also argued that the alleged harm had no causal connection to the builder and mortgage broker’s actions. Alternatively, the builder contended that none of the plaintiffs’ five causes of action state any viable claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
In granting our Motion, the Judge held that the housing bubble and inflation of housing prices were a nationwide phenomena. Further, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ harm is not fairly traceable to the alleged misconduct of the builder. The Court therefore held that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue for allegedly paying inflated purchase prices or for any subsequent reduction in property values and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Green & Hall Prevails in Binding Arbitration on Behalf of Builder
February 22, 2010 – Robert Green prevailed in a binding arbitration on behalf of a builder client that involved two consolidated actions. One of the claims was brought by homeowners who sought damages for an alleged perched water condition underneath their house, claiming that it exposed the slab to excessively-saturated conditions, which in turn purportedly led to damage and debonding of their home’s tile and wood flooring. In addition, the Plaintiffs claimed that their home and rear yard improvements were suffering damage from soil settlement and lateral fill extension. As a result of that movement, the Plaintiffs claimed that their entire rear yard (including the swimming pool) needed to be reconstructed and the soil stabilized with a caisson and grade beam repair. All totaled, the Plaintiffs sought damages exceeding $1.6 million.
The second action also involved alleged construction defects. The homeowners claimed shower leaks, window leaks, french door leaks, stucco and drywall cracks throughout the house, structural movement, and mold. These claimants sought $101,000 for costs of repair, fees and mold abatement.
The builder successfully argued that on the first home, there was insufficient proof of perched water and damage to the flooring caused thereby. In addition, all damage to rear yard improvements (admitted to exist) could be explained by the homeowners’ failing to follow the builder’s Disclosure Guidelines and warnings regarding the need for special engineering of structures in a top-of-slope environment.
On the second home, the builder argued that any leaks observed were attributable to a lack of homeowner maintenance. All of the cracks observed on the interior and exterior of the home were within industry tolerance, and the mold that was observed (attributable to the above-referenced leaks) was removed during destructive testing.
The Arbitrator agreed with the builder and gave both homeowners nothing. In addition, the purchase contracts with each homeowner contained an attorney’s fee provision and the builder was awarded all of its fees, costs and expert witness expenses (totaling $151,000).
Green & Hall Wins Defense Verdict in Trucking Liability Suit
May 5, 2010 – Robert Green and Katherine Lizardo obtained a defense verdict while representing the truck driver in a serious injury claim. This case involved a motor vehicle collision between a motorcycle rider and a truck driver hauling two-fully loaded tractor trailers. At an intersection the truck rolled into the motorcycle, knocked the Plaintiff down, unknowingly pushed him 48 feet into the intersection, and severed his right leg below the knee. Prior to the arrival of the investigating police officers at the scene, the Plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance. In the emergency room, the doctor ordered a blood test and Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was almost 0.20%. At trial, the Plaintiff did not dispute his own negligence in driving drunk. He however argued that the truck driver should share responsibility because he saw and/or heard the Plaintiff pull up (or alternatively could have/should have seen and heard him at the intersection). The Plaintiff claimed special damages totaling $2,447,662 (due to the traumatic nature of the injury, Plaintiff underwent 19 different surgeries over a 3-year period).
It should be noted that one year before trial, the defense moved to bifurcate, which the Court granted. Immediately prior to trial commencing, the parties stipulated to waive the damages phase by agreeing how to address the subject of monetary recovery. More particularly, there was little dispute on the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff. The parties therefore agreed that a reasonable estimation of probable verdict would be $4,000,000. Accordingly, they agreed pretrial to ask the jury to determine liability, and if liability was found, to apportion it, which would then be simply multiplied by the $4,000,000 figure. By reaching that stipulation, the parties avoided what they estimated to be approximately two or three weeks of trial (given the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries). And by agreeing to handle damages in this manner, the defense was able to avoid having the jury hear and see evidence of Plaintiff’s horrific injuries and need for lifetime care. Because the jury found 100% fault on the part of the motorcycle rider, no damages were awarded.
Read Archived News and Events:
