Source: https://www.gtlaw.com/ko/professionals/g/gershman-matthew
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:45:45+00:00

Document:
Matthew Gershman is a shareholder in the firm’s litigation and appellate groups. Matthew handles all phases of litigation in both federal and state courts from the pleadings stages through trial, as well as through writ proceedings and direct appeals. He has particular experience in disputes involving real estate, family trust management and copyright and trademark claims, as well as class-action claims in the areas of false advertising, unfair competition, and products liability.
Represented developer of luxury waterfront condominium complex in Long Beach, California against claims brought by homeowner’s association, on behalf of condominium owners, to challenge monthly compensation owed to developer from inception of complex through 2041. After three-week trial, defeated claims for disgorgement of past fees paid and to reduce fee to zero or a nominal fee going forward (rather than a fee pursuant to the contractual formula), resulting in seven-figure judgment in developer’s favor. Also handled appeal and defense of cross-appeal, with an appellate decision resulting in a substantially larger and eight-figure judgment in developer’s favor. See Marina Pacifica Homeowners Association v. Southern California Financial Corporation, 232 Cal. App. 4th 494 (Ct. App. 2014), review denied Mar. 11, 2015. Obtained affirmance of the final judgment in developer’s favor, after the homeowner’s association appealed again after lobbying the Legislature to change the law. Marina Pacifica Homeowners Association Southern California Financial Corp., 11 Cal. App. 5th 54 (Ct. App. 2017).
Represented scrap metal business in eminent domain proceedings concerning property taken by the State of California in connection with the I-5 corridor widening project in Los Angeles County. Just prior to the Final Status Conference leading up to trial, obtained $6.5 million settlement from the State (on top of more than $29 million previously obtained from the State on behalf of the client at a prior stage of the same litigation).
In matter of first impression regarding interpretation of the California Corporation Code’s procedure for voting by ballot in a religious non-profit corporation, obtained reversal on appeal of trial court’s decision regarding who had legal claim to possession of historic church. See The Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen of St. Mary of the Angels’ Parish v. Bush, Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Division No. BV031682 (nonpub. op. Dec. 1, 2017).
Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. in Corber v. Xanodyne/Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), in which the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed an order of remand following removal under the mass action provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. Case was one of first impression concerning the impact of a plaintiff’s request for coordination of actions under California’s coordination statutes.
Obtained $1 million summary judgment award against counterfeiters of UL certification marks used to advertise uncertified hoverboard toys. See UL LLC v. The Space Chariot Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 596 (C.D. Cal. 2017).) Thereafter, obtained (i) dismissal of one defendant’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, and (ii) summary judgment for nondischargeability against another defendant that filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7.
Handled Tracfone’s successful opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In doing so, obtained TTAB decision after trial holding that the TRACFONE mark is “renowned” and “commercially strong” and therefore “entitled to a concomitantly broad scope of protection,” which will be instrumental in enforcement efforts against other confusingly similar third-party marks. See TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Spy Phone Labs LLC, TTAB Opp. No. 91218042 (Aug. 16, 2018), appeal dismissed In re Spy Phone Labs LLC, No. 19-1075 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2018).
Represented the sole non-contingent beneficiary of a $400+ million family trust against the originally named co-trustees, in a six-month trial resulting ultimately in the suspension and removal of the co-trustees. Also handled successful defense on appeal. See Hughes v. Klein, No. A138983, 2015 WL 1455981 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), review denied June 10, 2015.
Obtained dismissal at the pleading stage on behalf of a major telecommunications provider in lawsuit alleging violations of equal protection, civil rights, and consumer protection laws.
Obtained dismissal on behalf of bank defendant, on threat of a summary judgment motion, in action brought by guarantors alleging fraud in execution of personal guaranties for business loan.
Represented film production lenders against foreign sales agency in arbitration involving contract and fiduciary duty claims; obtained award exceeding $950,000 in lenders’ favor (and subsequent court confirmation of the arbitration award).
°The above representations were handled by Mr. Gershman prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

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