Your Case. Our Strategy. Problem Solved.
Whether your company is closely-held or among the Fortune 500, Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin tailors a unique strategy to resolve your legal issues based on the facts and your goals. From negotiated settlements through trials and appeals, we apply decades of experience to efficiently pursue the best result possible.
You frequently will find our attorneys in court trying cases in front of juries, judges and administrative bodies on wide-ranging commercial litigation, including:
Successfully represented an insurance brokerage in prosecuting claims of breach of fiduciary duty relating to employee embezzlement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Employee had stolen confidential client information. After two-month jury trial, jury rendered $1.1 million verdict in favor of client. Obtained judgment against the employee as well as her new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets.
After one-month jury trial, achieved a verdict in client’s favor for claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract against a former employee. Client manufactures military tactical gear under government contracts, creating complex issues of ownership of goods. Former employee had stolen confidential information and used it to open a competing manufacturer. Following the jury’s verdict, the court issued a permanent injunction against former employee.
On the eve of trial, negotiated a favorable settlement for the manufacturer of fire extinguishers used in the engine bays of FA-18 E/F fighter jets in breach of contract claims against a government contractor. By understanding complicated chemical and electrical reactions, successfully demonstrated that the alleged failure of client’s product was caused by unspecified conditions in the aircraft, not by faulty design.
Successfully defended Tasty Fries, Inc., in district court and on appeal, against Silver Leaf, LLC regarding a $100 million master sales and marketing agreement. Silver Leaf filed the lawsuit to prevent Tasty Fries from terminating the agreement and moved for a preliminary injunction, which was denied by the district court
Prevailed in a jury trial representing subcontractor on the Metro Red Line project, achieving enforcement of an oral settlement agreement with prime contractor-defendant over a contractual dispute. Defendant had reneged on the oral settlement agreement achieved at deposition by counsel. Tried declaratory relief action to a jury after judge was openly dubious that the oral settlement agreement was authorized and enforceable. At trial, impeached the credibility of defendant’s CEO, who claimed he never authorized the oral settlement agreement, and persuaded jurors to answer every question of lengthy special verdict form in plaintiff’s favor. Also obtained award of 100% of client’s attorney’s fees.
