Source: http://www.stevensanchezlaw.com/practice-areas/contract-disputes
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:07:36+00:00

Document:
This litigation started out as the Pioneer Mortgage Litigation (Owens, et al. v. San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, et al., San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 633381; Goldman, et al. v. San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of California; Pioneer Liquidating Corporation v. San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, United States District Court, Southern District of California). The combined actions involved approximately 2,500 investors who had invested more than $200 million in Pioneer Mortgage Company ("Pioneer") and received in return various interests in fractionalized notes and deeds of trust and collateralized mortgage obligations. When Pioneer filed for bankruptcy in January 1991, investors sued the defendant financial institutions, accountants, title insurers and related parties.
After Pioneer filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff liquidating entity successor to Pioneer (known as Pioneer Liquidating Company), alleged that our firm’s client Wells Fargo Bank kept Pioneer in business while it was otherwise insolvent, thereby allowing Pioneer to further defraud its investors. Sanchez was co-counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, the only non-settling defendant, and co-trial counsel in a six-week federal court jury trial initiated by Pioneer Liquidating Corporation. The case involved complex banking and bankruptcy issues, including issues concerning when deposits become good funds, the “Midnight Deadline” rule, and a bank’s fraudulent transfer liability based on the manner in which it credited deposits made into its customer’s accounts. Following a mistrial resulting from a hung jury, the trial court granted our firm’s motion for judgment on all counts and entered judgment for the client. The matter was favorably settled following appeal.
Sanchez was co-counsel for Wells Fargo Bank in defense of numerous class action cases consolidated under the heading In Re Structured Settlement Litigation, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC244111, brought by numerous beneficiaries and payees of personal injury structured settlements against numerous financial institutions, including Bankers Trust, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Bear Stearns. Plaintiffs in those consolidated cases sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages caused by the alleged waste and diversion of the proceeds of their settlements by various trustors, trustees and investment advisors. After extensive litigation throughout the country, the matters were favorably settled.
Alpert v. Cuesta Title, et. al.
This litigation arose from the failure of mortgage loan broker Hurst Financial Corporation in San Luis Obispo, California. It involved multiple civil lawsuits and bankruptcy proceedings in California and Ohio where more than 500 investors combined sued Hurst Financial Corporation and related developers, title companies, and a financial institution for more than $75 million in losses sustained in connection with their investments in fractionalized notes and deeds of trust. Sanchez was lead counsel for the plaintiff investors in the coordinated civil lawsuits and co-trial counsel for the representative action on behalf of the plaintiff investors in a nine-week state court jury trial. Sanchez was also the lead attorney managing the various bankruptcies on behalf of the investor group. The matter involved complex real estate, banking, and bankruptcy issues, including lending, duty, and conspiracy issues for the bank defendant and discharge of debt issues for the bankrupt defendants. Our firm achieved substantial settlements on behalf of our investor clients in the civil lawsuits and bankruptcy proceedings.
Shames v. Jack in the Box Inc., et. al.
Sanchez represents Jack in the Box Inc., a Fortune 500 company, in this putative consumer class action. The plaintiff alleges that the pricing by Jack in the Box for certain menu items is misleading and violates certain consumer protection laws. The plaintiff also alleges that Jack in the Box engages in an unfair business practice with respect to its pricing. The case is currently in the discovery and deposition stage.
Bellmore v. Jack in the Box Inc.
Sanchez defended Jack in the Box Inc. in a putative class action alleging various wage and overtime claims. The putative class, consisting of Jack in the Box's present and former managers, sought tens of millions of dollars in allegedly unpaid overtime compensation. The matter was favorably settled on a class-wide basis before plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
The San Diego Unified Port District, et. al., v. The ExxonMobil Corporation, et. al.
Sanchez was co-counsel for the San Diego Unified Port District in an action to compel a former tenant to clean up and remediate toxic waste discharges and hazardous substance releases near the San Diego Bay. The Port District’s action alleged claims for, among other things, indemnity, contribution, nuisance, and breach of lease. The lawsuit involved many different parties, complaints, cross-complaints, and counter-complaints. After years of complicated and contentious litigation, our firm together with other counsel for the Port District obtained a favorable settlement. The site has been remediated and a hotel development at the site is completed.
Ananta Baidya, et al. v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, et al.
Kelly Lancaster, et al. v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, et al.
Thomas Abbe, et al. v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, et al.
Sanchez is co-counsel for the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (“SDCERS”) in defense of three putative class actions and approximately four hundred individual actions brought by current and former city government employees seeking damages after certain pension benefits were disallowed. The pension members sought money damages and equitable relief based on SDCERS changing their monthly payment amounts after the Court of Appeal ruled that certain benefits that the members were receiving were improper. The litigation involved issues concerning the scope and extent of fiduciary duties owed by the plan administrator to the pension members, as well as issues concerning the extent to which members are vested in their pension. Our firm obtained a judgment on behalf of SDCERS and that judgment is currently on appeal.
San Diego City Firefighters, Local 145, IAFF, AFL-CIO, et. al., v. The Board of Administration of the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System, et. al.
In this case, the City of San Diego enacted certain retirement benefits for labor union presidents, as well as certain leave of absence benefits for San Diego firefighters. Several years later, the Internal Revenue Service determined that the benefits did not comply with federal law and IRS regulations. In response, the City repealed the benefits. The plaintiff firefighters' union and certain members then sued the SDCERS Board and others to try to reinstate and/or recover the repealed benefits. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action and entered judgment for all defendants. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. Sanchez was brought into the case to write the Respondent’s Brief on behalf of the SDCERS Board.
These related cases are based on SDCERS correcting overpayments made to pension members by reducing their future monthly pension amounts. The lawsuits seek a judicial determination that, among other things, SDCERS is barred from recouping vested pension amounts. Sanchez is co-counsel for SDCERS. The cases are in the discovery and deposition stage.
Palomar Products, Inc. v. Raytheon, et al.
Obtained a multimillion dollar settlement in favor of a technology company in the prosecution and defense of various contract-related claims in connection with the development, manufacture, and delivery of an air traffic control system for the Canadian government. The complicated case involved highly technical substantive information, complex interrelated companies and subsidiaries, and some litigation in Canadian courts.
Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc.
Sanchez represented Jack in the Box Inc. in litigation brought by a franchisee alleging contract, tort, and unfair business practices claims in connection with several existing franchises and the plaintiff’s efforts to acquire additional franchises. Sanchez successfully defended the lawsuit, obtained a dismissal, and recovered more than $70,000 in attorneys’ fees.
We were lead trial counsel for a certified class of purchasers of a certain dietary supplement (Xenadrine RFA-1), which action was brought for disgorgement and other remedies under California Business & Professions Code section 17200. The matter proceeded to trial in February and March 2003, in San Diego Superior Court. At the conclusion of an approximate seven-week, non-jury trial, the trial court in a 36-page written opinion found in favor of our client in all respects and awarded restitution of $12,536,820, in addition to substantial injunctive relief (Park v. Cytodyne Technologies, Inc., San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 768364). Sanchez was brought into the case to write the Respondent’s Brief in the appeal. The matter was favorably settled while the appeal was pending.
Ortiz v. McNeil – PPC, Inc.
The firm represented defendants, subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, in the defense of nationwide consumer class actions brought in the Southern Districts of California and Florida concerning a children's mouth rinse product. Sanchez was brought into the case to write the opposition to the motion for class certification. We successfully defeated class certification and obtained dismissal of both cases.
We represented the San Diego Padres major league baseball team in the defense of two class actions in San Diego Superior Court. The actions were brought by ticket sales employees relating to wage and hour issues. Sanchez was brought into the case to write the opposition to the motion for class certification. The matters were successfully settled after it appeared to plaintiffs that their motion for class certification would be denied.
Copyright © 2019 The Law Office of Steven W. Sanchez. All Rights Reserved. Designed by Internetize.Me.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.