Experience
MEDIATION EXPERIENCE
In serving as a mediation neutral, Carl draws on his broad and extensive experience and familiarity with the dynamics of resolving all types of disputes. Regardless of the substantive dispute, he is able to facilitate settlement discussions so that parries can be meaningfully heard and work together to reach mutually satisfactory resolutions. Carl is available for in-person and virtual mediation. Areas of specialty include:
- Employee-employer disputes
- Insurance coverage
- Real estate and leases
- Commercial and vendor disputes
LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
Goleta Water District v. Slippery Rock Ranch, LLC. Represented public water district in high-profile water rights dispute involving attempted private appropriation of water resources.
Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. Representing public agency in multi-million dollar insurance coverage dispute arising from class action alleging privacy violations.
Shipman v. Darfon Electronics Corp. Represents manufacturer of illuminated computer keyboards in patent license dispute.
Young v. CEP America-California. Represented group of emergency room physicians in alleged statewide class action and PAGA action for wage and hour violations.
SF Urban Forest Coalition v. San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Successfully defended state agency against efforts to subject it to local regulation.
In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation. Represented global manufacturer of TFT-LCD panels in complex multi-district antitrust litigation and related opt-out and state enforcement proceedings. Defended client in five-week trial against national retailer. The cases raised cutting-edge issues that resulted in pivotal decisions by circuit courts and U.S Supreme Court.
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co. Represented policyholder in action seeking reimbursement of defense and indemnity expense in connection with allegations of chemical releases arising from TCE (and other VOCs), in addition to NDMA and perchlorate exposure at, and near, Azusa site.
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indem. Co. (17 Cal. 4th 38 (1997)). Represented policyholder seeking reimbursement of defense and indemnity expense in connection with historical chemical releases at Sacramento site. Obtained landmark appellate decision, holding that investigative expenses are recoverable as defense expenses.
Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Prieto (9th Cir. 2017). On behalf of California craft breweries, prepared successful amici curiae brief in en banc rehearing, resulting in decision that rejected First Amendment challenge to tied house statutes.
LSI Corporation. Successfully defended high-tech client in an alleged lease agreement breach. After prevailing on summary adjudication motion, case proceeded to trial, and client obtained affirmative recovery.
American States Water Co. v. Aerojet-General Corp. Defended aerospace manufacturer against utility’s claims arising from alleged chemical contamination of groundwater.
Children's Hospital and Research Center, Oakland v. WCAB, 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8027. Successfully invoked statutory and constitutional privacy protections to obtain Court of Appeal decision that protected confidentiality of medical files of HIV-infected children.
Photon Dynamics, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. Filed lawsuit against D&O and EPL insurers and successfully recovered defense expenses after high-tech client obtained jury verdict on securities and misrepresentation claims in lawsuit by former officer.
City of Richmond v. Levin Enterprises. Pursued insurers who provided coverage dating back over 40 years and successfully obtained nearly complete recovery of settlement and defense expenses incurred by client—all without filing litigation.
Trend Micro. Obtained insurance reimbursement for litigation expenses, without filing lawsuit, in high-stakes patent infringement litigation for a software manufacturer.
Title insurance matter. Successfully asserted owners' rights and obtained a settlement from the title insurer, without filing suit, when owners of a historically significant live-work space learned that the title policy had failed to disclose a 100-year old deed that threatened rights to access the property.
