Mr. Holcomb received his J.D. degree in 2005 from Southwestern University School of Law, where he graduated magna cum laude and was an Articles Editor for the Southwestern University Law Review. While a staff writer for the Law Review, Mr. Holcomb wrote “Congressional Intent Rebuffed: The Federal Communications Commission’s New Perspective On 47 U.S.C. § 315(a)(2),” published at 34 Sw. U. L. Rev. 87 (2004). Mr. Holcomb received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from California State University, Fullerton, graduating magna cum laude.
I. Partnership Disputes
|
A. Mr. Holcomb represented an insurance agency against a former officer and shareholder for claims of embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, and against the former officer and shareholder and her new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to the misuse of customer lists to improperly solicit clients. After a two month jury trial, Mr. Holcomb obtained a judgment totaling more than $1 million.
B. Mr. Holcomb represented an employer in claims for unfair competition against a competitor that induced employees to quit client’s business and misappropriate the client’s trade secrets. The claims were settled after mediation.
C. Mr. Holcomb represented a client who owned a 50% interest in a company which manufactures make-up products. Mr. Holcomb successfully negotiated the redemption of all remaining shares, leaving the client as the sole shareholder of the company.
|
II. Probate and Estate Litigation
|
A. Mr. Holcomb represented a father whose minor daughter held a multimillion dollar interest in a company that was being sold. Mr. Holcomb successfully sought appointment of the father as guardian to represent the daughter in the transaction.
B. Mr. Holcomb successfully opposed co-executors’ efforts to freeze and/or block financial accounts of a decedent in an attempt to prevent the client, who had been designated as a beneficiary on a $250,000 account, from obtaining funds.
C. Mr. Holcomb represented a beneficiary of trust against trustee for claims of breach of fiduciary duty relating to failure to administer trust according to its terms. Mr. Holcomb negotiated a settlement in which his client obtained ownership of real property, one of the most significant assets of the trust, and one-half of all other assets.
D. Mr. Holcomb represented a beneficiary and co-trustee in a petition for removal of a co-trustee for breaches of trust relating to the co-trustee’s refusal to pay income and principal to the client as required by the trust instruments. Mr. Holcomb received an order removing the co-trustee, denying the co-trustee’s petition to remove the client as co-trustee, and requiring the trust to reimburse over $100,000 in trust expenses paid by the client and pay $11,000 per month to the client.
|
III. Professional Liability Litigation
|
A. Mr. Holcomb represented a paralegal who had been sued for practicing law without a license. After receiving a significant sanction award for the plaintiff’s discovery abuses, Mr. Holcomb levied on plaintiff’s prized automobile. The matter settled shortly thereafter in exchange for the vehicle’s return.
|
VI. Employment Litigation
|
A. Mr. Holcomb represented an employee who had a contractual relationship with employer pursuant to which employee, in the event of termination before expiration of the term of employment, would receive generous severance benefits. Upon the employee’s termination without cause, employer refused to pay employee the contractual severance benefits. Mr. Holcomb contributed to a successful settlement that was reached shortly before trial.
B. Mr. Holcomb represented a consultant who sued the company for which he provided consultant services for payment for the services provided over a period of years. The consultant performed services at a severely discounted rate with the expectation that the consultant would receive a significant commission upon the sale of the company. The consultant was terminated without further compensation when a sale was imminent. Mr. Holcomb contributed to a settlement following mediation.
|
V. Anti-SLAPP Litigation
|
A. Mr. Holcomb represented two parties who were sued after dismissing one party from an underlying action after settling and/or obtaining default judgments against the remaining defendants. The defendant who was dismissed from the underlying action subsequently filed a malicious prosecution action. Mr. Holcomb contributed to an anti-SLAPP motion and successfully opposed the malicious prosecution plaintiff’s attempts to take discovery pending the hearing on the motion. The anti-SLAPP motion was granted and the clients were awarded their fees.
|
