On May 9, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved by a vote of 5-0 the nomination of Jason A. Hobson as a Member to the CPUC’s Low Income Oversight Board (LIOB).  The LIOB was established by the California legislature to advise the CPUC on low-income electric, gas and water customer issues and to serve as a liaison for the CPUC to low-income ratepayers and representatives.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

With the addition of Myrna Castanon, a recognized leader in the area of labor and employment law, Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP is now able to better serve our clients in labor and employment matters.  Ms. Castanon has over 16 years of labor and employment experience, advising clients on personnel rules, collective bargaining agreements, discrimination matters, termination disputes, worker’s compensation and OSHA requirements.  Ms. Castanon is a graduate of University of California Hastings College of Law (JD) and University of California Los Angeles (BA).

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

on April 11, 2011, Jason A. Hobson met with Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Raskin, together with other community leaders, to discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and the important role of community banks.

Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Raskin (Center), with Jason A. Hobson of Hobson, Bernardino + Davis LLP (Right) and Jorge Corralejo of the Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles (Left).

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

Congratulations to firm partner, Stanley L. Friedman, for his recognition by the Los Angeles Business Jounral as a finalist for the Lifetime Achievement – Healthcare Leadership Award.  Mr. Friedman’s successes in signficant halthcare industry cases have ensured that the state’s poor and disabled residents receive healthcare benefits that they otherwise would not have received.

Starting in 2008, Stan has filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of the sick, poor and disabled which have resulted in six injunctions being issued against the State of Californiaand the federal government.  These injunctions are as follows:  Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, Central District of California, injunction obtained on August 18, 2008; Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, Central District of California, injunction obtained on November 17, 2008;  Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California, injunction obtained on February 27, 2009; and California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California, injunction obtained on May 5, 2010;  Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius, Central District of California, injunction issued on December 28, 2011; and California Medical Transportation Association v. Douglas, Central District of California, injunction issued on January 10, 2012.

These cases have progressed to the United States Supreme Court and have resulted in the following published decisions:

Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008)

 Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129S. Ct. 2828 (2009)

 Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, 603 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

 Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2009)

 In Re: Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litigation, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2009)

 Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, 590 F.3d 725 (2009)

 Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, 565U.S. ___ (Feb. 22, 2012)

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

The Supreme Court sent back to a lower court a case on whether Medicaid recipients and medical providers can sue California for cutting reimbursement rates in the healthcare program for low-income Americans.  This is a significant, strategic win for California’s low-income residents that rely upon Medicaid-funded health care.

The high court said on Wednesday that after it heard oral arguments in the case on October 3, federal government officials approved the state’s statutes as consistent with federal law.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the majority opinion the case was sent back to a U.S. appeals court based in California to determine whether the recipients and providers may sue in light of the changed circumstances of the federal government’s approval.

In sending the case back, the justices set aside a ruling by the appeals court that had blocked the cuts for violating federal law.

The case involved a plan by California’s lawmakers in 2008 to slash Medicaid payments to doctors, hospitals and other medical providers to help reduce the state’s massive budget deficit.

The providers sued to stop the cuts from taking effect on the grounds it would violate federal law. The cash-strapped state said the cuts of up to 10 percent would save more than $700 million.

The state and the Obama administration argued that only the U.S. government can enforce the federal law and private citizens have no right to sue.

The Supreme Court cases are Douglas v. Independent Living Center, 09-958, Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association, No. 09-1158 and Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, No. 10-283

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

Interested investors who want to acquire and rent out real-estate owned properties from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) can begin pre-qualifying for participation in the bulk REO rental program.  The FHFA, as conservator for the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, says investors can now enter the pre-qualification process to establish whether they have the financial ability and property-management capacity to bid on transactions during the initial pilot phase of the program.

“This is an important step toward increasing private investment in foreclosed properties to maximize value and stabilize communities,” said FHFA acting director Edward DeMarco. “I am grateful for the collaborative effort by the many stakeholders including investors, nonprofit organizations, and state and local government officials, who have worked together on this Initiative.”

Investors who qualify will be able to purchase pools of foreclosed properties for the purpose of turning those homes into rentals.

The pre-qualification process will identify early on which investors have the expertise to manage the properties and the financial capacity to deal with the homes for a long period of time. Investors who participate also have to sign agreements, promising to keep certain aspects of the deals confidential.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

On February 14, 2012, Jason A. Hobson met with Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama, and Don Graves, Executive Director for the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, to discuss the anticipated REO program of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.   Jason Hobson, as counsel for the National Asian American Coalition, Black Economic Council and the Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles, also met with Mary Miller, Undersecretary for the Treasury, Martin J. Gruenberg, Chair of the FDIC, Karen Mills, SBA Administrator, Barry Wides, Deputy Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Gene Kimmelman of the Department of Justice – Antitrust Division,  and J. Thomas Rosch, Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP is committed to advocating on behalf of our clients with the federal governmental agencies from the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

Healthcare Litigation

The attorneys of Hobson Bernardino + Davis have been in the lead on cutting-edge issues facing the healthcare industry. We have the breadth that few law firms can offer to their clients and have represented clients in federal and state courts, licensing proceedings and government investigations.

The firm’s lawyers have represented healthcare organizations, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, nurses, home healthcare agencies, medical transportation providers and medical equipment supply companies.

Range of Litigation Services for Healthcare Providers

Our clients can rely on us to effectively defend them in government or qui tam actions brought under the federal anti-kickback statute, False Claims Act, RICO and SEC allegations. Our representation may commence with an internal compliance audit, a governmental audit or investigation, a third-party payor audit or investigation, the filing of a lawsuit, the filing of an indictment or criminal complaint, the execution of a search warrant, or upon receipt of a subpoena from a federal or state agency. We understand the devastating impact that these events can have on a provider and we work quickly and efficiently to resolve the problem.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis Provides High Quality Healthcare-Law Representation

The healthcare lawyers at Hobson Bernardino + Davis are highly accomplished attorneys with the kind of experience, education and interests that define exceptional representation. In the last few years, our lawyers have represented healthcare providers before licensing agencies, state courts, United States District Courts, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.

Featured Experience

Representation in cases in which injunctions were obtained on behalf of clients involving billions of dollars:

• Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, Central District of California, injunction obtained on August 18, 2008;

• Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, Central District of California, injunction obtained on November 17, 2008;

• Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California, injunction obtained on February 27, 2009;

• California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California, injunction obtained on May 5, 2010.

• Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius, Central District of California, injunction obtained on December 28, 2011;

• California Medical Transportation Association v. Douglas, Central District of California, injunction obtained on January 10, 2012.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

Environmental issues have a central place in the public consciousness, the media and state, local and national politics. Real and perceived environmental threats from such diverse sources as landfills, factories, real estate developments, farms, energy generators and consumer products have produced laws and regulations at all levels of government and a proliferation of litigation over environmental liabilities. Moreover, since most environmental statutes now contain criminal sanctions, persons can be subject to criminal prosecution not only for contributing to pollution, but for failing to report pollution. Accordingly, our firm’s practice of environmental law encompasses an understanding of multiple sub-specialties, as well as skills in sophisticated litigation techniques, technical aspects of environmental sciences, corporate legal issues and criminal law and procedure. Consequently, attorneys with a keen, unbiased eye are required. Hobson Bernardino + Davis has those attorneys.

Our firm’s environmental practice is as broad and as deep as almost any environmental practice at any law firm in the United States. We represent corporations, developers and energy companies in cutting-edge environmental litigation and in solving complex regulatory and transactional issues. The firm regularly counsels clients on the environmental aspects of commercial and real estate transactions, provides regulatory advice and litigates matters under CERCLA and other environmental statutes. The attorneys of Hobson Bernardino + Davis practice, speak and write extensively on environmental issues. Among the types of environmental transactions engaged in by our attorneys are the following: negotiating and drafting tolling agreements, remediation agreements, licensing agreements, leases, lease amendments, indemnity agreements and access agreements; participating in development and financing/re-financing issues; responding to requests for information from governmental agencies and private parties; reviewing and analyzing claims from third parties affected by energy development or distribution; analyzing insurance issues and tender claims where applicable, and; interfacing with local, state and federal regulatory agencies. For ARCO alone, the firm’s attorneys have handled over one hundred transactions impacted by environmental concerns, ranging from purchase and sale of property to loan agreements. None of these transactional matters ever resulted in litigation, nor was ARCO ever fined or subject to any private or regulatory penalty.

The firm’s attorneys have a wealth of experience in federal and state enforcement cases (both civil and criminal), permitting and other administrative proceedings. For example, the firm’s attorneys have acted as lead defense counsel in a considerable amount of nationwide product liability litigation concerning allegedly hazardous materials. Environmental litigation has long been a hallmark of the firm’s attorneys and a prominent aspect of the firm’s environmental practice. Examples of recent environmental cases litigated by our attorneys include: ARCO adv. Douglass, Santa Barbara County Superior Court, defense verdict following 54 day jury trial on environmental torts; ARCO adv. Mitchell Land & Improvement Company, Riverside County Superior Court, nonsuit in favor of ARCO on disposal dispute; Koch Industries adv. Harms, Nueces County District Court, Texas, successful defense of environmental class action lawsuit resulting in de minimis settlement by Koch Industries; Koch Industries adv. OCI Superfund Site, United States District Court, W. D. Michigan, successful defense of “superfund” lawsuit resulting in de minimis settlement, and; In re OCI, United States District Court, Central District of California, successful defense of “superfund” lawsuit resulting in dismissal.

In sum, over the past twenty years, the firm’s attorneys have represented clients in all aspects of environmental law. The following is a brief synopsis of our attorneys’ environmental law experience:

1. Cost recovery litigation on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants;
2. Hazardous waste cleanup compliance and counseling under CERCLA, RCRA, HSAA, Porter-Cologne and Polanco Redevelopment Act;
3. Litigation and counseling under the Federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Power Act and California Environmental Quality Act;
4. Preparing, defending and challenging Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS);
5. Underground storage tank litigation;
6. Litigation under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Fifth Amendment takings law;
7. Defense of Proposition 65 claims;
8. Defense of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 claims;
9. Insurance coverage of environmental cleanups;
10. Project permitting and transfer issues;
11. Assisting clients in preparing their Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Risk Management and Prevention Program, and other materials, in addition to developing an overall environmental compliance schedule;
12. Landfill projects, oily soil projects and similar projects under the supervision of Cal-EPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control;
13. Advising clients on environmental requirements in storage tank removal and hazardous waste transportation;
14. Drafting and negotiating agreements for various matters such as removal, hazardous waste disposal and property access;
15. Assisting numerous companies, small, medium and large, with compliance requirements of Proposition 65;
16. Developing and conducting environmental audit programs;
17. Toxic tort litigation;
18. Developing procedures for emergency response to oils spills and participating in the emergency spill response;
19. Representing clients before the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards;
20. Representing underground storage tank owners before county and local agencies;
21. Counseling banking clients concerning contaminated property held as security and foreclosure, and counseling clients negotiating with banks and other lenders regarding environmental matters and due diligence;
22. Conducting environmental due diligence and drafting disclosure statements for SEC documents;
23. Conducting environmental due diligence for purposes of obtaining private financing;
24. Drafting and negotiating indemnity agreements;
25. Drafting and negotiating access agreements;
26. Drafting and negotiating remediation agreements;
27. Drafting and negotiating tolling agreements;
28. Drafting and negotiating “comfort” letters for use by borrowers and lenders;
29. Advising purchasers, sellers and lenders regarding the allocation and management of environmental risks in real property transactions;
30. Advising clients regarding sale of property with groundwater contamination;
31. Advising clients regarding sales of property with groundwater contamination migrating to or from neighboring property;
32. Advising clients regarding acquisition and sale of shopping centers with environmental issues relating to underground gasoline storage tanks;
33. Advising clients, including issuers, equity participants, and underwriters, in connection with corporate financing transactions and environmental diligence and disclosure pursuant to SEC requirements across a variety of industries, including petroleum, chemical, manufacturing, and electronics;
34. Representing clients in criminal proceedings before state and federal courts;
35. Counseling clients targeted by Grand Jury Investigation in various parts of the United States concerning alleged environmental violations;
36. Counseling clients and representing them in administrative proceedings with local fire and county health departments concerning the monitoring, upgrade and corrective action for underground storage tanks;
37. Defending against criminal actions alleging violations of air pollution control laws, illegal disposal of hazardous waste, and violation of occupational safety and health standards;
38. Pipeline litigation, including defense of class action litigation by fisherman, homeowners, and others arising out of pipeline spills;
39. Obtaining approval of numerous refinery and other oil industry projects from local and state environmental agencies;
40. Prosecuting and defending numerous private cost recovery actions by current and former property owners and tenants asserting claims for damage, and soil and groundwater contamination resulting from discharges of oil, petroleum products, and chemicals;
41. Prosecuting and defending lawsuits arising from leaking underground storage tanks;
42. Prosecuting claims against the California Underground Storage Tank Fund (the firm has previously recovered funds for our clients);
43. Representing potentially responsible parties at Superfund sites nationwide;
44. Prosecuting first-party and third-party claims against carriers under CGL policies for coverage for environmental losses (the firm does not represent any insurance company, and there has never been a conflict regarding such actions);
45. Defending against allegations arising from a major oil spill (the firm routinely represents a major oil company in an actions brought by the United States and the State of California); and
46. Advising clients in connection with environmental legislation, including the drafting of legislative positions.

The firm’s overriding philosophy is to provide our clients with cost-effective representation to navigate the sometimes complex system of state and federal regulations, to adequately assess the risks of a given situation, to minimize legal exposure for past practices and to maximize clients’ recovery against others who are responsible. Name partner, Rafael Bernardino, has unique experience representing several Fortune 500 companies in environmental law matters and has often defended and prosecuted CERCLA and RCRA lawsuits on behalf of small, medium and large businesses. This area of the firm’s practice involves representation of clients in negotiations, litigation and settlements on clean-up enforcement orders issued by state and federal environmental authorities and in cost recovery actions.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm

Our Expertise in Litigation

While litigation is often a last resort in resolving disputes, the threats of litigation and assessment of litigation danger are an important aspect of the modern business environment. Hobson Bernardino + Davis has been known for the success of its litigators.

Our firm has substantial involvement in virtually all types of litigation that affect businesses in the United States, from product liability to intellectual property, environmental and real estate litigation to professional liability disputes, to name but a few. The Firm’s litigation practice is distinguished by its proficiency at assembling versatile teams of trial lawyers to advance complex client interests. Each team is individually fashioned, taking into account the attorney’s knowledge of the area of law in dispute and litigation and trial experience. When it is in the best interests of the client, the team may include litigators from more than one of the firm’s offices. The firm’s attorneys have extensive trial experience before federal and state courts, arbitration panels and administrative agency tribunals throughout the United States.

The attorneys of Hobson Bernardino + Davis have handled thousands of major business litigation matters, variously representing Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, high-profile individuals, charities, religious organizations, governmental entities and venture capital firms. Our firm’s clients come from many industries and include companies headquartered in North and South America, Europe and Asia. Before litigation, our attorneys are frequently called upon to counsel clients on ways to minimize liability exposure, assess litigation risks and objectives and develop strategies in light of recent judicial trends. Although the firm’s practice includes highly experienced litigators, we often structure and negotiate creative, cost-effective, consensual resolutions that achieve our clients’ objectives without incurring the cost, delay and risk of protracted litigation. In cases that reach the courts, the firm offers clients the size and experience necessary to conduct full-scale litigation—quickly if needed—to protect their interests. Indeed, we believe that our reputation for litigation success enhances our ability to achieve favorable negotiated results. Our clients benefit from the credibility our attorneys have built up with the courts over many years.

The trial lawyers of Hobson Bernardino + Davis have extensive experience in presenting complex matters to both juries and courts in high-stakes commercial cases. The group is known for its ability to prosecute or defend complex disputes in a cost-efficient and concise manner. Complex matters may arise because of the facts or legal issues surrounding a particular matter. The ability to explain such complexities to a jury in an easy-to-understand manner is a critical skill. Our firm’s trial attorneys handle class actions, complex technology matters and cases that require computer management of huge numbers of documents or facts. We possess a thorough knowledge of trial rules and procedures, including the application of recent technology to both discovery and courtroom presentation.

Indeed, we believe that our reputation for success at trial enhances our ability to achieve favorable negotiated results. For example, the firm has had unbroken success against “specialist” firms because our attorneys have found that attacking a problem from multiple angles puts the specialist on unfamiliar ground where they are most vulnerable. For example, “specialist” attorneys are always confronted by our firm’s multi-disciplinary approach that invariably produces successful resolution. This is due to a usually superior knowledge of substantive law, the law of evidence, proven discovery techniques, law and motion tactics including summary judgment motions, and a hard-nosed, “ready to try the case before a jury” appearance that either leads to success before the jury, or, more often than not, is an ace in the hole at the negotiating table.

Our Experience in Commercial Disputes

Contract disputes form the basis of virtually all business litigation, and the attorneys of Hobson Bernardino + Davis have extensive experience in presenting complex contractual disputes to both juries and courts in high-stakes commercial cases. Among the clients that our firm’s attorneys have represented in complex contractual disputes are: Air France, Alcoa, Inc., Asbury Environmental Services, Atlantic Richfield Company, Inc., BP America, Inc., CalPERS, California Pacific Holdings, Inc., The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., the City of Cudahy, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the City of South Gate, Du Pont de Nemours and Company, the FDIC, J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Koch Industries, Inc., Mercedes Benz of North America, MGM/UA Communications Company, Multicoat Products, Inc., Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Pacific Convenience & Fuels, LLC, The Walt Disney Company and World Oil, Inc. These clients and others can hire the largest law firms in the world to represent them, and our firm is extremely proud of the fact that its lawyers provide the degree of service that places them among the nation’s elite firms.

Our Experience in Construction Law

In construction-related litigation, Mr. Bernardino served as ARCO’s only outside counsel in the following types of matters: breach of contract, contract defaults, termination of contractors, defense and prosecution of property damage claims arising from construction projects, arbitration of payment disputes, prosecuting professional liability matters against design professionals arising out of catastrophic failures, litigation regarding payment for alleged or improper change orders/extra work and scope of work disputes, litigation arising out of claims of delay, many construction defect lawsuits (both prosecution and defense), disputes over insurance coverage, prosecution of bond/surety actions, and defense of mechanics lien claims.

Our Experience in Representing Governmental Entities

Hobson Bernardino + Davis has represented and currently represents a number of municipalities, such as the City of Cudahy and City of South Gate in a broad range of tort defense matters, including discrimination, fraud and civil rights violations, as well as complex financial and tax disputes. Our firm has also represented and currently represents public agencies, such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, as well as private utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric Company in a variety of real estate, construction, contract and bond disputes. Our firm also represents the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in a variety of litigation and transaction matters arising out of the recent financial and banking crisis.

Our Broad Experience in Tort Matters

In the course of representing the firm’s large industrial clients, such as ARCO, Koch Industries and World Oil, our attorneys have defended clients charged with a broad range of allegedly tortious conduct, from slip and falls at gasoline stations, to defense of major toxic torts resulting from pipeline ruptures and release of hazardous substances.

Our Experience in Healthcare Law

Stanley Friedman is recognized as a leading expert in the field of healthcare law. Among other things, Mr. Friedman was the lead attorney in Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008); Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2828 (2009); Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, 603 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2009); In Re: Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litigation, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2009), and; Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Shewry, 590 F.3d 725 (2009). There are very few attorneys in the State of California with Mr. Friedman’s experience, qualification and unparalleled record of success litigating healthcare issues.

Our Experience in Public Record Act Matters

As a result of prior work experience with the United States Department of Justice and representing a variety of governmental entities as outside counsel, the firm’s attorneys have ample experience in both appropriate record keeping and preservation of documents. Moreover, the firm’s attorneys are experienced in utilizing the various public record and public information acts to both obtain and restrict access to confidential and proprietary information, as necessary.

Our Experience in Banking and Finance Law

Our firm’s recognized expertise in banking and finance law is reflected by the fact that Hobson Bernardino + Davis is one of the few law firms in the nation that has entered a Legal Service Agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Accordingly, our firm is well positioned to represent its banking and credit union clients in virtually any type of litigation involving banking or finance law in any legal setting, including trial court, appearances before regulatory commissions and bankruptcy court. In addition to this practical experience, Mr. Bernardino also teaches Bankruptcy Law.

Our Experience in Litigating Insurance Disputes

Stanley Friedman recently won a 7.96 Million Dollar verdict for his client who was denied insurance coverage in bad faith. Mr. Friedman was also awarded attorneys fees. Our attorneys are trained to quickly analyze insurance claims and rapidly marshal all necessary documentation and facts to support any claims against any insurer. Our firm has never represented any insurance company; as such, the firm will never be in any conflict when representing its clients against any insurer or group of insurers.

Our Experience in Environmental Litigation

The attorneys of Hobson Bernardino + Davis have a wealth of experience in federal and state enforcement cases (both civil and criminal), permitting and other administrative proceedings. For example, the firm’s attorneys have acted as lead defense counsel in a considerable amount of nationwide product liability litigation concerning allegedly hazardous materials. Environmental litigation has long been a hallmark of the firm’s attorneys and a prominent aspect of the firm’s environmental practice. Examples of recent environmental cases litigated by our attorneys include: ARCO adv. Douglass, Santa Barbara County Superior Court, defense verdict following 54 day jury trial on environmental torts; ARCO adv. Mitchell Land & Improvement Company, Riverside County Superior Court, nonsuit in favor of ARCO on disposal dispute; Koch Industries adv. Harms, Nueces County District Court, Texas, successful defense of environmental class action lawsuit resulting in de minimis settlement by Koch Industries; Koch Industries adv. OCI Superfund Site, United States District Court, W. D. Michigan, successful defense of “superfund” lawsuit resulting in de minimis settlement, and; In re OCI, United States District Court, Central District of California, successful defense of “superfund” lawsuit resulting in dismissal.

Our firm’s interdisciplinary approach to the practice of law enhances its ability to represent our clients in litigation matters. Hobson Bernardino + Davis includes full-time trial lawyers, as well as lawyers from other practice areas such as tax, bankruptcy and real estate, who assist with particular issues on an as-needed basis. This interdisciplinary approach is particularly valuable to our clients because business disputes do not occur in a vacuum. Readily available, substantive expertise in related areas of the law is essential to efficient and effective representation.

Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP - An "AV-Rated Preeminent" Law Firm