310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeMastodonLinkedInInstagramRedditTumblrTribelSubstack Notes

Top Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Los Angeles

Expertise.com Selects Helmer Friedman LLP As One Of The Top 18 Medical Malpractice Lawyers In Los Angeles

Expertise.com, a self-described hub where qualified experts can connect with people to share their knowledge, experience, and skills, has selected Helmer Friedman LLP as one of the top medical malpractice law firms in Los Angeles. After looking at 855 medical malpractice lawyers in Los Angeles and grading them on five factors (reputation, credibility, experience, availability, and professionalism), Expertise.com selected Helmer Friedman LLP as one of the top 18 such law firms and awarded the firm the following badge:
Helmer Friedman LLP named Top Medical Malpractice Lawyers of Los Angeles.

To view the rankings, you can visit Expertise.com at https://www.expertise.com/ca/los-angeles/medical-malpractice-attorney

2018-04-12T13:45:42-08:00June 1st, 2017|Front Page News, Medical Malpractice|Comments Off on Top Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Los Angeles
Read More

Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Helmer Friedman LLP

This afternoon, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Helmer Friedman LLP’s clients Crystal Monique Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington (Case No. 10-56068).

Following the victory of Helmer Friedman LLP in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2017 on behalf of Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington, Fannie Mae filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit to, in effect, disregard the Supreme Court’s decision, and, instead, to affirm the District Court’s dismissal of their case.  After extensive briefing, the Ninth Circuit denied Fannie Mae’s Motion. Instead, the Ninth Circuit granted the relief that Helmer Friedman LLP had requested and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate its prior judgment in favor of Fannie Mae and then remand the case back to California State Court.

“As with the Supreme Court’s decision, this decision from the Ninth Circuit is also complete vindication for our clients who have argued for years that their lawsuit against Fannie Mae should be heard in the California state courts and not in federal court,” commented Andrew H. Friedman of Beverly Hills-based Helmer Friedman LLP.

A copy of Fannie Mae’s Motion can be found here.

Helmer Friedman LLP’s Opposition to Fannie Mae’s Motion can be found here.

Fannie’s Mae’s Reply can be found here.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision can be found here.

2018-08-23T15:57:49-08:00March 20th, 2017|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Helmer Friedman LLP
Read More

Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court Sides With Helmer Friedman LLP

This morning, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the U. S. Supreme Court sided with Helmer Friedman LLP’s clients Crystal Monique Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington and held that Fannie Mae’s sue-and-be-sued clause does not grant district courts jurisdiction over cases involving Fannie Mae.  The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit which had ruled against Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington.

“This decision is complete vindication for our clients who have argued for years that their lawsuit against Fannie Mae should be heard in the California state courts and not in federal court,” commented Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman of Beverly Hills-based Helmer Friedman LLP.

Here is the opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/14-1055_6j36.pdf

Los Angeles, San Francisco Daily Journal Article: High Court Decision.
2018-08-23T11:34:23-08:00January 18th, 2017|Front Page News, Supreme Court|Comments Off on Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court Sides With Helmer Friedman LLP
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition Certiorari

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition For Certiorari Filed By Helmer Friedman LLP

Helmer Friedman LLP is very pleased to announce that this morning the Supreme Court granted our petition for certiorari in Crystal Monique Lightfoot, et al. v.  Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, dba PHH Mortgage, et al.  Case No. 10-56068.  According to the Supreme Court, approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed each Term and the Court grants and hears oral argument in merely 80 of those cases – about 1%.  Given the slim chance that any petition for certiorari will be granted, founding Helmer Friedman LLP partners, Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman, exclaimed: “We were thrilled a month ago when the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Court recommending that our petition be granted. This morning, we are beyond ecstatic.”

At issue in the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae  case is whether individual homeowners who have been wrongly or fraudulently foreclosed upon by Fannie Mae have the right to sue the mortgage giant in the state courts.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Its brother organization is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), better known as Freddie Mac. With the advent of the 2008 housing crisis and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the verge of collapse, the U.S. government was forced to “bail out” the firms in September 2008. Accordingly, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and fired the firms’ chief executive officers and boards of directors. On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.

In the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae  case, two Californians (Crystal Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington) involved in a mortgage dispute sued Fannie Mae in California State court. Fannie Mae then removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Fannie Mae’s sole basis of removal was under a belief that its congressionally created charter conferred automatic federal jurisdiction. That statute says Fannie Mae has authority “to sue and be sued, and to complain and defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a) (emphasis added). After removal, Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington immediately sought remand from the District Court to California State court arguing Fannie Mae’s charter did not confer automatic federal question jurisdiction. The District Court denied the application to remand. Eventually, Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington appealed the district court’s denial of remand decision to the Ninth Circuit.  Initially, the Ninth Circuit affirmed District Court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to remand on the basis that the District Court had removal jurisdiction over state claims filed to circumvent the res judicata impact of a federal judgment. Notably, however, Fannie Mae did not remove the case on that basis. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit, sua sponte, withdrew its decision and ordered the parties to submit briefing on the issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of Fannie Mae’s federal charter. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit held that Fannie Mae’s federal charter conferred original jurisdiction in the federal courts.  A brief chronology of the proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court follow:

San Francisco Daily Journal - High Court Article.
2018-08-23T15:48:24-08:00June 28th, 2016|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition Certiorari
Read More

Former General Manager Files Suit to Demand Justice From Government Contractor

The former General Manager of MV Transportation’s San Leandro, California office filed a lawsuit today in Los Angeles County Superior Court against his prior employer, MV Transportation, and its Regional Vice President, Clarence Michael Stewman (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC614873).  Plaintiff Aaron Gonzales’ lawsuit alleges, among other things, that MV Transportation and Mr. Stewman lured him away from his job in Texas to begin a new position in California based on false promises and representations, and that after he arrived in California, the defendants reneged on their obligation to pay Mr. Gonzales his quarterly bonus for meeting performance goals.

California Labor Code Section 970 prohibits an employer or individual from persuading a person to move residences for a job, “by means of knowingly false representations” regarding compensation or other matter.  Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit alleges that when he complained about the underpayment of his bonus, the company fired him in retaliation for his complaints, which is unlawful under California law.

MV Transportation provides passenger transportation via fixed-route, paratransit (for people with disabilities) and school buses.  MV TRANSPORATION contracts primarily with government entities across the U.S. and Canada and provides consulting services world-wide.  MV TRANSPORTATION boasts annual revenues of $1,000,000,000.00 (one billion dollars) and operates nearly 10,000 transit vehicles and employs more than 16,500 transit professionals.

Mr. Gonzales is represented by Helmer Friedman, LLP a Culver City, California law firm that represents employees and other individuals who seeking to assert their rights.  Mr. Gonzales’ attorney, Andrew H. Friedman stated, “No private company, particularly ones that receive public money, ostensibly to carry out public services, should be permitted to flout employment laws and betray the trust that taxpayers have bestowed in them.”  Mr. Friedman continued, “Corporations headquartered in Texas sometimes mistakenly think that they can come to California and act like this is the ‘wild west.’  But even corporations headquartered in other states must follow California employment laws.”

For more information about Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit, please contact Andrew Friedman or Lincoln Ellis at 310-396-7714.   Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to Mr. Gonzales’ claims please contact Mr. Friedman and/or Mr. Ellis.  A copy of Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit can be found here.

2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00March 24th, 2016|employment law, fair employment rights, Front Page News, Wage & Hour Violations, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Former General Manager Files Suit to Demand Justice From Government Contractor
Read More

CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

June 24, 2015 –The former Chief Financial Officer of SolarMax Technology, Inc. – a renewable energy conglomerate located in Riverside, CA – has filed a lawsuit against the company and several of its directors and executive management team, including CEO David Hsu, Executive Vice President Ching Liu, and CFO Simon Yuan. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC585952). Among other things, plaintiff Michael McCaffrey alleges that he was fired for exposing fraud and financial improprieties in connection with approximately $60 million in capital SolarMax has raised from foreign nationals through the federal EB-5 Immigration and Visa Program (colloquially known as the “Visa for Sale” program). The EB-5 program provides wealthy foreign nationals (and their immediate families) with a two-year fast track to permanent U.S. residency in return for investing $1,000,000 or, in some cases, $500,000 in domestic businesses. The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. McCaffrey discovered that SolarMax, by engaging in a series of Enron-like “round trip” transactions with sham middleman entities, reported approximately $50,000,000 in phantom revenue on its 2011 and 2012 audited financial statements. In an effort to create a false impression of stronger financial performance and, thus, to attract investment capital, the suit alleges that SolarMax disseminated these artificially inflated figures to EB-5 investors (mostly in Taiwan and China) and others. Mr. McCaffrey also alleges that the inflated revenue figures were presented to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – part of U.S. Homeland Security – which regulates the EB-5 program.

“Most people do not realize that there is a program by which foreign citizens can literally purchase Green Cards if they have enough money and invest it in a qualifying business,” said Mr. Helmer. The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. McCaffrey exposed a series of other unlawful activities at SolarMax, including efforts to defraud the Social Security Administration by placing non-employee friends and relatives on the company’s payroll for the sole purpose of permitting them to earn Social Security credits. He further alleges that there existed a pattern of favoritism for the many employees of Chinese descent, and that he – and other employees who were not of Chinese descent – were subjected to unfair treatment and discrimination.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Helmer said, “Mr. McCaffrey, in his role as the CFO, was simply trying to ensure that SolarMax complied with the same set of rules and operated on the same playing field as all other law-abiding companies. Instead, he was fired after discovering a pattern of improprieties and trying to protect himself – and the company – by insisting that they be discontinued.”

For more information, please contact Gregory D. Helmer or Courtney Abrams at (310) 396-7714.

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Complaint

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Press Release

2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00June 24th, 2015|fraud, Front Page News, national origin discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees
Read More

$5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

May 1, 2015 –

Court of Appeal Affirm’s Ted Mathew’s $5.7 Million Jury Verdict For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Today, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling and reinstated a $5.7 Million jury verdict that Charles “Ted” Mathews obtained on behalf  Dr. Michael W. Fitzgibbons.  Commenting about this victory, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, said “Ted’s victory today exemplifies why we wanted him to join our law firm. We think that Ted is one of the premier trial attorneys on the West Coast and we could not be happier that he is working with us.”

Mr. Mathews’ client, Dr.  Fitzgibbons, sued his former employer, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHI”), for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of IHHI’s chief executive officer (“CEO”).  At trial, the jury impliedly found that IHHI’s CEO carried out his threat to “humble” Dr. Fitzgibbons by having him arrested after arranging for a loaded handgun to be planted in his car. The jury also impliedly found the CEO caused Dr. Fitzgibbons’s daughter to be in a serious auto accident after one of her tires was slashed. The CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons to punish him for his outspoken opposition to IHHI’s acquisition of the hospital where Dr. Fitzgibbons had just completed a term as chief of staff, and also Dr. Fitzgibbons’s success in an earlier lawsuit that resulted in a $150,000 attorneys fee award against IHHI.  Accordingly, the jury found in favor of Dr. Fitzgibbons and awarded him $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against IHHI.

Following the trial, the trial court granted IHHI’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it found IHHI was not vicariously liable for its CEO’s misconduct under the respondeat superior doctrine. According to the trial court, the CEO acted outside the scope of his employment because he held a personal grudge against Fitzgibbons and therefore his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated the jury’s verdict because foreseeability of the CEO’s conduct is not the exclusive test for determining the employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s torts. An employee also acts within the scope of employment when his or her tort is engendered by or arises from a dispute that relates to the employer’s business. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s implied finding the CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons based on a dispute relating to IHHI’s acquisition and operation of the hospital, and the trial court’s finding the CEO acted out of a personal grudge impermissibly supplants the jury’s determination on the weight and credibility of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.

2018-04-12T13:45:55-08:00May 1st, 2015|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News, retaliation|Comments Off on $5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Read More

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer  Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter’s performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered “all” claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted “any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty.” During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that “

[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided” and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not “save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law.”

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration,” commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away.” The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman

2022-06-08T10:23:02-08:00September 3rd, 2014|Andrew Friedman, Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful
Read More

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel – Helmer Friedman LLP’s Discrimination Lawsuit Chivas USA

2018-04-12T13:45:59-08:00July 23rd, 2013|discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel – Helmer Friedman LLP’s Discrimination Lawsuit Chivas USA
Read More

Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination

Greg Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, discusses discrimination lawsuit filed against Chivas USA on NBC News.

(more…)

2018-04-12T13:45:59-08:00May 29th, 2013|Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top