Los Angeles Real Estate Lawyers Mark Anchor Albert and Associates HomePublished Decisions
Many of the cases handled by the Senior Litigation Partners and Counsel at Mark Anchor Albert and Associates have resulted in important published decisions which other courts, treatises and commentators often have cited in other cases. A partial listing of these cases, with a link to them in PDF format, is set forth below.
In re Cheri Fu adv. City National Bank. Represented the Debtor, Defendant, and Appellant in a series of appeals from three non-dischargeable money judgments entered on summary judgment, totaling over $75 million. Achieved reversal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a new trial. Opinion reported at 739 Fed. Appx. 432 *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22822 **; 2018 WL 3941293.
Download the PDFIn re President Donald Trump Tax Return Litigation, Filed a constitutional challenge on behalf of a Republican voter challenging the Presidential Tax and Transparency Act ("the Act"), enacted as Senate Bill 27, which requires, among other things, presidential candidates in the California primary to have disclosed their federal tax returns for the previous five years as a precondition to appearing on the State's partisan primary ballot. Obtained a preliminary injunction barring the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, and California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, from enforcing the Act. Obtained dismissal of the State of California's Ninth Circuit appeal challenging the District Court's Order. Griffin v. Padilla, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2:19-cv-01477-MCE-DB; No. 2:19-cv-01501-MCE-DB; No. 2:19-cv-01506-MCE-DB; No. 2:19-cv-01507-MCE-DB; No. 2:19-cv-01659-MCE-DB.
Download the PDFAcacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) (complex patent claim construction).
Download the PDFAcacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19314 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007) (complex patent claim construction)
Download the PDFAcacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93710 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2006) (complicated claim construction of patent terms involving electronic transmission and receipt of data)
Download the PDFStreamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Technologies, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97392 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (motion to dismiss antitrust claims granted with prejudice regarding P2P streaming claims)
Download the PDFStreamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Technologies, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97391 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (order dismissing with prejudice complex conversion, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims relating to internet file sharing technologies)
Download the PDFPeople v. Demery, 104 Cal. App. 3d 548 (1980) (statute prohibited unauthorized prescriptions deemed constitutional)
Download the PDFPeople v. Lewis, 20 Cal. 3d 496 (1978) (criminal defendants are entitled to explain the reasons why they wanted to discharge court-appointed attorneys, and refusal to permit them to do so is error)
Download the PDFRobinson v. Superior Court, 76 Cal. App. 3d 968 (1978) (Defendant was entitled to all statements made by witnesses that the state intended to call to testify at his trial, including statements given to opposing counsel, because the work product privilege does not apply in criminal prosecutions)
Download the PDFStreamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (Defendants' alleged transfer of the technology out of the hands of plaintiff and into the exclusive control of other defendants even if violative of the provisions of the license agreement, did not result in higher prices or decreased output for the consuming public. As such, plaintiff failed to allege any cognizable antitrust injury).
Download the PDFMGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (historic peer-to-peer file-sharing litigation).
Download the PDFStreamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., CV 06-391 FMC (Ex), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97393 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (antitrust complaint dismissed).
Download the PDFState Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 4th 490 (2004) (trial court properly denied defendant's motion to disqualify trial judge; trial court's decision regarding conflict of laws issue did not constitute a "trial" and the granting of defendant's prior writ petition would not result in a "new trial.")
Download the PDFTransamerica Fin. Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 302 B.R. 620 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (granting motion to remand complaint because recovery for plaintiffs would not directly affect Enron's bankruptcy estate, Enron was not named as a defendant, the instant proceeding therefore was within "related to" subject matter jurisdiction).
Download the PDFAUSA Life Ins. Co. v. Citigroup, Inc., 293 B.R. 471 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (remanding Enron-related securities fraud complaint).
Download the PDFState Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. App. 4th 434 (2003) (in a national class action by policyholders against an insurance company, the law of the state where the company was incorporated was to be applied to actions on its internal decisions, and but dismissal of the action was not appropriate; the action could properly proceed in California state court).
Download the PDFIn re Brown, 17 Cal. 4th 873 (1998) (habeas corpus relief was granted to defendant, who was convicted of capital murder, where the prosecution failed to disclose a positive drug test in defendant's blood sample, which would have aided his defense of diminished capacity).
Download the PDFHenry v. Alcove Inv., 233 Cal. App. 3d 94 (1991) (while an order staying arbitration was appealable, the agreement's choice of law provision foreclosed a preemption argument against a stay, and the joinder of a defendant not a party to the agreement was no ruse and risked conflicting rulings)
Download the PDFHill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (2008) (in an action against a mutual insurance company for dividends, policyholders were not entitled to an accounting in part because a claim for breach of contract was precluded by the business judgment rule. The board of directors could rely on information from management and the company's actuarial department in fulfilling duty to consider dividends).
Download the PDFIn re Acacia Media Techs. Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37009 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2005) (patent holder claiming that various internet-based adult entertainment providers infringed its patents succeeded in dismissing counterclaim for abuse of process because the patent holder's initiation of a lawsuit could not form the basis of an abuse of process counterclaim. The patent holder's other lawsuits against other defendants could not form the basis of the company's abuse of process counterclaim. because they were too remote. Patent holder's alleged misstatements to the media did not abuse the judicial process.).
Download the PDF
