Published Decisions

The lawyers of Overland Borenstein Scheper & Kim regularly represent individuals and corporations in matters involving novel issues, resulting in decisions of sufficient importance and precedential value to warrant reporting in the official case reporters. Our work before the federal courts have resulted in published decisions by the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, federal district courts in California and other states. Our work in California has similarly resulted in published decisions by the California Supreme Court, and the Courts of Appeal. The following is a sampling of the decisions from different jurisdictions involving a variety of issues, reflecting the depth and breadth of our practice.

United States Supreme Court

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Antitrust: Reyes v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 12 F. 3d 1464 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming summary judgment, dismissing claims alleging violations of Petroleum Marketing Practices Act by former franchisees)

Appealable Collateral Order: U.S. v. Benjamin, 812 F. 2d 548 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that order denying defendants' motion to dismiss indictment for violation of rule prohibiting disclosures of matters before grand jury is appealable as collateral order)

Breach of Contract: U.S. Cellular Investment Company of Los Angeles, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc., 281 F. 3d 929 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming trial court's grant of summary judgment in breach of partnership agreement action that threatened a major merger in the cellular telephone industry)

Civil Rights:  California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, 195 F. 3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (police questioning of suspect after invocation of right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona violates clearly established constitutional rule negating officers’ claim of qualified immunity)

Federal Civil Procedure:  McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 423 F. 3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2005) (motion for judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 50(a) cannot be granted before opposing party is fully heard on the issue)

Federal Habeas Corpus: Douglas v. Woodford, 316 F. 3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to capital defendant in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of state trial)

Federal Procedure:  Bentler v. Bank of America, 959 F. 2d 138 (9th Cir. 1992) (for purposes of determining the “last pleading” under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 38(a)’s 10-day limitation on demand for jury trial, the last pleading is that required to be filed as between the plaintiff and any of the jointly liable defendants)

Forfeiture: U.S. v. One 1954 Rolls Royce Silver Dawn, 777 F. 2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1985) (forfeiture of vehicle involved in illegal tax shelter investment scheme and seven month delay between seizure and forfeiture proceedings did not deprive claimant of due process)

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Douglas v. Woodford, 316 F. 3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to capital defendant in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of state trial)

Federal District Courts

Federal Preemption: Montgomery v. Bank of America, N.A., -- F. Supp. 2d -- (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2007) (finding that putative class action plaintiff's state-law claims challenging the amount and disclosure of insufficient funds fees were preempted by the National Bank Act)

Constitutional Law: United States v. Stein, 435 F. Supp. 2d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (finding that the government impermissibly interfered with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of former partners at KPMG to advancement of legal fees to defend criminal tax fraud case)

Federal Criminal: U.S. v. Stein, 461 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (motion to adjourn criminal trial granted where determination of whether defendants’ entitlement to advanced legal fees is necessary to determine advisability of dismissal or other potentially serious sanctions against government)

Federal Forfeiture:  United States v. Saccoccia, 913 F. Supp. 129 (D.R.I. 1996) (defendant against whom criminal forfeiture judgments had been entered was entitled to be present during post-trial depositions of attorneys who represented them during criminal prosecution, conducted for the purpose of locating assets subject to forfeiture)

Transfer: U.S. v. Benjamin, 623 F. Supp. 1204 (C.D. Cal. 1985) (granting motion to transfer to Central District in the interests of justice and judicial economy).

California Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline:  In re Chira, 42 Cal. 3d 904 (1986) (where attorney convicted of federal offense involving moral turpitude, suspension imposed by California State Bar held "overly punitive" and execution of suspension stayed) 

California Courts of Appeal

Antitrust:  People's Choice Wireless, Inc., v. Verizon Wireless, 131 Cal. App. 4th 656 (2005) (affirming demurrer sustained without leave to amend, dismissing multiple class-action antitrust claims brought by independent cellular phone dealers against client Verizon Wireless) 

Arbitration:  Alan v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 217 (2003) (court may not compel arbitration before a forum not designated in arbitration agreement)

Franchise Tax Board: Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, 168 Cal. App. 3d 970 (1985) (peremptory writ issued to overturn trial court's order to release property and to enter new order releasing property to Franchise Tax Board)

Malicious Prosecution: Roberts, et al. v. Sentry Life Insurance, et al., 76 Cal. App. 4th (1999) (upholding dismissal of insured's action against disability insurer and former counsel for malicious prosecution after insurer's breach of contract, bad faith and fraud suit was resolved in insured's favor).

Negligence: Lubner v. City of Los Angeles, 45 Cal. App. 4th 525 (1996) (affirming judgment against City of Los Angeles for property damages resulting from City's negligent destruction of client's artwork) 

Political Reform Act: League of Women Voters of California v. Countrywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, 203 Cal. App. 3d 529 (1988) (determining whether county officials improperly spent public funds in partisan campaign activities and failed to report such expenditures under the Political Reform Act) 

Preemption: People v . Orozco, 266 Cal. App. 2d 507(1968) (determining whether a local criminal ordinance is preempted by state law pursuant to then Article 11 §11 of the Califotnia Constitution)

Search & Seizure: People v. Rosenfeld, 16 Cal. App. 3d 619 (1971) (whether disposal of contraband by defendant was product of unlawful police conduct requiring suppression of evidence)

State Civil Procedure:  Korea Exchange Bank v. Yang, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1471 (1988) (deficiency judgment may be entered against party served by substitute service; personal service of application for deficiency judgment not required)

Unreported Decisions of Note

Preliminary Injunction:  City of Thousand Oaks v. Verizon Media Ventures, Inc., 69 Fed. Appx. 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (reversal of preliminary injunction against client prohibiting asset sale to cable provider as violating city ordinance)

Preliminary Injunction:  South Central Farmers Feeding Families v. City of Los Angeles, 2005 WL 1531980 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.) (reversal of preliminary injunction granted against client)

Discovery:  Weller v. Superior Court, 2004 WL 2110400 (Cal. App. 2 Dist) (peremptory writ of mandate granted ordering trial court to vacate order denying protective order in civil discovery)