POWERLINE CONTROL SYSTEMS v. STAN MANN
AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR BREACHING HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES LOSES HIS POSITIONS AND HIS STOCK
Powerline Control Systems, represented by David Romney, uncovered during pretrial discovery the conversion of monies and misuse of corporate assets by a director and officer. As a result, the officer lost his positions and surrendered his stock for minimal consideration in settlement.
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT (Employment)
SUPERVISOR WITH DISABILITY ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR DISCHARGE BY EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
As trial approached, a major employer paid a settlement in excess of $500,000 for a supervisor discharged in violation of the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA).
BOWERS v. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, 75 Cal.App.3d
A CITY HAS AUTHORITY TO CONTROL PAY AND WORK SCHEDULES OF CITY EMPLOYEES IN NATIONAL GUARD
A city police officer demanded pay for all time spent at National Guard Duty during two-week summer camp and on weekends. The city, represented by David Romney, defended. After trial and appeal, the appellate court found the city had to pay for the mandatory two week summer camp but properly could eliminate need to pay for weekend duty by re-arranging a police officer's schedule to accommodate it.
REILLY v. WEBER
(Orange County Superior Court, Judge Sills)
A PARTNER’S “EXPENSES,” IN FACT, ARE FRAUD
After a 10-day jury trial, the jury rendered a verdict in the amount of $235,000 against a partner in a publishing business who ran his personal “expenses” through the partnership despite his allegations that the facts were the other way around. The prevailing partner, defendant/cross-complainant, Sam Weber, was represented by David Romney
KIMURA v. ROBERTS
(Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Ackley)
AN APPEARANCE OF BIAS ENTITLES A CITY COUNCIL TO REMOVE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER MARRIED TO THE MAYOR
The trial judge ruled that a planning commissioner could not be removed for 'appearance of bias' since it would violate the planning commissioner's right to marry the mayor. The appellate court overruled the trial court. In doing so, it found that removal for "appearance of bias" was not barred by the "right to marry" since the planning commissioner was married and could remain married. Rather, the issue was "appearance of bias" which was rightly resolved by removal of the planning commissioner from the planning commission.