Source: http://www.louisgfazzi.com/achievements/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:41:29+00:00

Document:
Copyright © Louis G Fazzi, Esq. Attorney & Counselor at Law. All Rights Reserved.
Catanzaro v. City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, $3.5 million jury verdict.
Edwards v. Superior Court (Kirianoff) (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172 , 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 838, held (1) The 90-day notice requirement of CCP section 364 in medical negligence actions is not jurisdictional; (2) The total failure to comply with the statute does not invalidate an action against the medical practitioner; and (3) A failure to allege the specific factual basis of each cause of action does not prevent the plaintiff from alleging the cause in the lawsuit or from obtaining leave to amend the complaint to add any cause of action omitted from the section 364 notice.
Vasquez v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Fair Assn.) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 430 , 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 [union may not waive its members' rights to a jury trial for statutory discrimination claims].
Main Fiber Products, Inc. v. Morgan & Franz Ins. Agency (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1130 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 108 [party seeking review of court finding of a good faith settlement must pursue a timely writ in the court of appeal and may not wait and appeal after entry of a final judgment].
Pitzer v. Security Pacific National Bank, (see, 202 Cal. Rptr. 848); Estate of Pitzer, 155 Cal. App. 3d 979, 202 Cal. Rptr. 855 (1984). This was a breach of trust case; authored the operative complaint as a law clerk, then conducted all discovery and performed all the trial preparation; co-tried the case with Mr. Shernoff; the jury verdict was in excess of $3,000,000.
Clark v. Brimble, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. C 577438; co-counsel with Mr. James Guziak of Orange County, Ca. Legal malpractice case, settlement over $1,000,000.
H&M Associates v. City of El Centro, 109 Cal. App. 3d 399, 167 Cal. Rptr. 392 (1980). In this invasion of privacy case, the court held as a matter of first impression that privacy could be invaded by word of mouth alone, and that a partnership has a right to privacy. The case is also important on the pleading allegations necessary to establish a civil conspiracy.
Williams v. Lake Arrowhead Community Services District, San Bernardino County Superior Court; Jury trial based on tort theory that the defendant and its manager violated the plaintiff’s due process rights protected by 42 USC § 1983 by terminating her employment without prior notice and a hearing as required of government employment. The jury verdict: $200,000; case settled for $300,000.
Bond v. Community Development Commission, San Bernardino County Superior Court; established due process right to employment and civil rights violations for discharging plaintiff without following personnel policies which gave due process to employees. Case settled for $700,000.
Numerous cases tried before juries to verdicts, including punitive damages, most of which were paid or settled, including confidential seven figure settlements.
Eversole v. Metropolitan Insurance Company, 500 F. Supp. 1162 (C. D. Cal. 1980); Argued at the request of Harvey Levine, San Diego, Ca. Until the decision in Pilot Life v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S. Ct. 1549, 95 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1987), Eversole was cited as one of the scholarly opinions on the issue of ERISA preemption in the Ninth Circuit.
Brown v. People’s Temple, San Francisco Superior Court. Represented the the widow of the NBC cameraman killed in Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978. Negotiated the second highest settlement in the receivership proceeding, after the late Marvin Lewis’ settlement on behalf of the family of Congressman Ryan, who was also killed at the Jonestown airport.
Fremont Indemnity Company v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 3d 879, 184 Cal.Rptr. 184 (1982).
Argonaut Insurance Company v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. App. 3d 320, 210 Cal. Rptr. 417 (1985).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.