Best Best & Krieger News Feed Best and Krieger is a Full Service Law Firmen-us24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 -0800firmwise Telecommunications Attorney Helps Stop Massive Cell Tower in Texas Town<p>Best Best &amp; Krieger attorney James Hobson helped a small Texas community prevent a major telecommunications company from building a nearly 300-foot-tall, lattice-style cellular phone tower along a scenic and historic road.<br /> <br /> The citizens of Brenham, Texas formed a group known as CAVEAT (Citizens Against Verizon&rsquo;s Enormous Antenna Tower) after Verizon had filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission on June 27 to build the tower along La Bahia Road. The road was originally an east-west Indian trail in southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas. The citizen&rsquo;s group contacted politicians at the local and federal levels, sought help from historic commissions and hired attorneys to aid them in their quest to stop the tower from being constructed.<br /> <br /> Hobson, based in BB&amp;K&rsquo;s Washington, D.C., office, helped the citizens group understand the documents submitted by Verizon to the FCC, strongly urged the group to maintain local pressure for an alternative site for the tower and advised it to file papers with the National Register of Historic Places to determine if the landscape that would be affected by the massive tower was eligible for selection to the list.<br /> <br /> On Sept. 10, Verizon notified the FCC that it decided to withdraw its application and canceled the project on La Bahia Road.</p>Client Successes18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 -0800 Approves County's Denial of T-Mobile's Request to Construct Wireless Service Facility<p>The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an important decision finding that when Fairfax County, Virginia denied T-Mobile's request to construct a wireless service facility, the County did <i>not</i> violate the Federal Communications Act. Early in the case, the FCC had filed an <i>amicus curiae</i> brief urging the Fourth Circuit to alter its longstanding precedent by applying the FCC's recent &quot;shot clock&quot; order.<br /> <br /> In response, BB&amp;K attorneys filed an <i>amici curiae</i> brief on behalf of the City of Arlington, Texas, the International Municipal Lawyers Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National League of Cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors urging the court to find that the FCC's order neither supported T-Mobile's position, nor required the court to change its view of the law. Mirroring many of the arguments made by BB&amp;K in its brief, the court ruled that its precedent was &quot;unaffected by the FCC's ruling,&quot; and held that the County's denial did not violate the Communications Act.<br /> <br /> BB&amp;K attorneys Joseph Van Eaton, James R. Hobson and Matthew K. Schettenhelm authored the amici brief in support of the County.</p>Client Successes05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0800 Wins Prop. 218 Case for Community Services District<p>Best Best &amp; Krieger attorney Piero Dallarda won a key court decision for the Salton Community Services District when a judge ruled that the district did not have to refund some $300,000 to a mobile home park.</p> <p>The plaintiff, the Salton Sea Mobile Home Park in Salton City, alleged the district was violating Proposition 218 by charging a monthly fee for sewer service that was not being used by some of the park&rsquo;s empty lots.</p> <p>Dallarda argued that the Prop. 218 refund process can&rsquo;t be applied to a community services district like it can to a city or county. In addition, he argued, it takes resources and money to make the service available, whether or not it is used, and charging a monthly fee for that investment of resources does not violate Prop. 218.</p> <p>Imperial County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey B. Jones granted Dallarda&rsquo;s motion for summary judgment, which prevented an expensive trial from moving forward.</p>Client Successes02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0800 Condition Claim Procedure Helps Corona Exit Lawsuit<p>A van stopped to fill up at a publicly accessible compressed natural gas filling station owned by the City of Corona. While filling the vehicle, a tank on the van ruptured, severing a passenger's foot and causing other injuries. The passenger sued the manufacturer of the van, the manufacturer of the tank, the manufacturer and designer of the city's pump system, the city, and the former owner of the van.</p> <p>On behalf of the City of Corona, BB&amp;K attorneys John Higginbotham and G. Ross Trindle, III successfully brought a motion for summary judgment.&nbsp;The city relied heavily on its claim procedures and the absence of any record of prior claims.&nbsp;The court ruled that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition of public property, and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the city had prior notice of any problem with the filling station.</p> <p>This ruling emphasizes how critical it is to work closely with the city clerk and other departments regarding complaints, claims for damages and other potential notices of dangerous conditions.</p>Client Successes17 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0800 Secures Ninth Circuit Affirmation in Civil Rights Lawsuit<p>In <em>Dougherty v. City of Covina, et al</em>., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal found that qualified immunity shielded a Covina police officer from liability when he applied for and secured a search warrant for child pornography from a neutral magistrate.&nbsp; Though the officer lacked probable cause to apply for the warrant, the court held that the law on search warrants for child pornography was not sufficiently established to attach liability.&nbsp; The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling dismissing the action as to the officer, with prejudice.</p> <p>More importantly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing Plaintiffs' remaining claims, with prejudice, for failure to state municipal liability against the City and failure to state supervisory liability against the chief of police and the officer in his official capacity as a supervisor.&nbsp; The court agreed with BB&amp;K attorneys Chris Pisano and Ross Trindle that Plaintiff's complaint failed to comply with the new &quot;plausibility&quot; standard articulated by the Supreme Court in <em>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly </em>and <em>Ashcroft v. Iqbal</em>.&nbsp; This represents a significant departure from the liberal pleading standard typically relied upon by Plaintiffs and the Ninth Circuit in judging the sufficiency of allegations under a Motion to Dismiss.&nbsp; Moving forward, municipalities, police departments and law enforcement officers have a powerful argument to employ early in litigation to force Plaintiffs to plead all facts supporting their claims or otherwise face dismissal.</p>Client Successes01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0800 Attorneys Win Appellate Decision in Favor of Rialto<p>This action was filed by Rialto firefighter Nicolas Delia against the City, its former Fire Chief (Steven Wells), two current Battalion Chiefs (Frank Bekker and Mike Peel) and the City&rsquo;s legal counsel (Steve Filarsky) alleging that Delia&rsquo;s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search was violated when Chief Wells issued a written order to Delia (based on Filarsky&rsquo;s legal advice) that he show defendants some fiberglass building insulation that was located inside his house.&nbsp; The question of whether the insulation was actually installed in Delia's house was important for a disciplinary investigation.&nbsp;</p> <p>On January 12, 2009, BB&amp;K attorneys Howard Golds and Cynthia Germano filed a summary judgment motion on behalf of the City, Wells, Bekker and Peel in the Central District of California in which we argued that a <i>Monell </i>claim could not be maintained against the City because it had no policy or custom regarding the searching of employee homes and on behalf of the three individual City employee defendants based on the defense of &ldquo;qualified immunity.&rdquo;&nbsp; The District Court ruled in favor of all defendants on March 9, 2009 finding not only that no <i>Monell </i>claim had been stated and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity but also that no Fourth Amendment violation had taken place.&nbsp; On April 3, 2009, Delia appealed the District Court&rsquo;s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.&nbsp; On September 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit in a published decision unanimously upheld the District Court's granting of Summary Judgment in favor of the City and the three City employees.&nbsp; The Court reversed as to the claim against Filarsky and that portion of the case will now be remanded back to District Court.</p>Client Successes23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Obtains Water Rights Worth $3.5 Million for Town of Apple Valley<p>BB&amp;K attorneys obtained water rights worth $3.5 million for the town of Apple Valley while settling a lawsuit, allowing the town to irrigate its only golf course and preventing that water from being sold to a third party. In 2008, the town opened escrow and took over daily operations of the financially struggling Apple Valley Country Club, hoping to turn the 160-acre private club into a municipal golf course. Escrow remained open until the rights to the groundwater were resolved. Without the water, the cost of operating the golf course would have been prohibitive.<br /> <br /> BB&amp;K attorneys Piero Dallarda and John Brown, who serves as town attorney to Apple Valley, filed a lawsuit in November 2008 to resolve the issue. The High Desert Community Foundation, a nonprofit, claimed it was granted a deed to the water rights from a company seeking a tax deduction. That same company maintained the reversionary rights to the land, meaning it could take possession of the country club if the town decided to use the land for something other than a golf course. The foundation also sought to sell the water to third parties.<br /> <br /> Dallarda argued that the country club owned the right because it actively participated in an adjudication of the Mojave Basin, as did the predecessors to the foundation, and had been using the water for the past 60 years. During settlement talks, all parties agreed to the town offering $750,000 for both the water and reversionary rights, and the insurance companies for the county club and the foundation kicking in another $435,000.<br /> &nbsp;</p>Client Successes23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Attorney Defends Clients From Efforts to Remove Them as Trustees<p>BB&amp;K attorney&nbsp;Henry Welles of the Indian Wells office successfully defended in trial Merrill Lynch and Jason Rubin from efforts to remove them as trustees on a $30 million trust estate. The efforts to remove the trustees were the product of undue influence against a 97-year-old woman by some of her relatives. The trustees have sued to recover in excess of $2 million for financial elder abuse, and that case is still pending.</p>Client Successes22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Attorneys Assist City of Azusa in Shutting Down Nuisance Property<p>The City wanted to shut down a nuisance property with maintenance and trash violations.&nbsp; The owners were career felons and threatened staff when they would try to inspect the property.&nbsp; Neighbors were scared.&nbsp; Police had&nbsp;visited the property for numerous other issues, including production and sale of meth.&nbsp; BB&amp;K brought a criminal nuisance abatement action against the owners and obtained an inspection warrant.&nbsp; From that, BB&amp;K obtained an abatement warrant that allowed the City to enter the property, correct all violations and trash, and recover all of its costs.&nbsp; BB&amp;K utilized specialized cost recovery methods to enable the City to recover all costs - from staff costs to attorneys fees.</p>Client Successes16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Attorneys Assist City of Fontana in Shutting Down Illegal Sports Bar<p>The City wanted to shut down an illegally operating sports bar.&nbsp; Attorney Matt Silver of the Irvine office created a strategy and directed undercover operations through the PD, which revealed the bar was operating in violation of its conditional use permit, holding &quot;13 and over teen nights&quot; and there were gun battles, fights and marijuana.&nbsp; Matt and Chris Pisano (LA) successfully obtained a restraining order and then an injunction to shut down the bar.&nbsp; BB&amp;K represented the City in an administrative hearing which resulted in their CUP being revoked and negotiated a settlement with the landlord for partial reimbursement of the City&rsquo;s attorneys fees and other costs.&nbsp; The case is almost resolved as to the bar owner.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>Client Successes07 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Best & Krieger Attorney Dons Baseball Cap for Latest Legal Conquest<div style="margin-top: 10px"> <p>BB&amp;K business attorney Margaret &ldquo;Peggy&rdquo; Hosking recently closed the sale of the <a title="" target="_blank" href=""><strong>Rancho Cucamonga Quakes</strong></a>, one of the premiere minor league baseball teams and an affiliate of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> Hosking represented the current owner of the Quakes -&nbsp;Valley Baseball, Inc. -&nbsp; in negotiations with the buyer group, which was led by Hall of Famer George Brett, former 3<sup>rd</sup> baseman for the Kansas City Royals, and his brother, Bobby Brett. <br /> <br /> The Brett family controls several minor league sports teams across the country, including the Bellingham Bells of the West Coast League and the Spokane Chiefs hockey club of the Western Hockey League.&nbsp;During a press conference discussing the sale, Bobby Brett likened the Quakes to the Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Yankees in the major leagues. <br /> <br /> The sale closed Aug. 7 after approval was gained by the California League, Minor League Baseball and Major League Baseball. Hosking negotiated the sale of the team as well as the sale of the related concession company.&nbsp;Randi Walseth, a BB&amp;K paralegal, was instrumental in assisting with due diligence on the deal, Hosking said. <br /> <br /> Valley Baseball is led by Hank Stinkney, who is a longtime client of BB&amp;K attorney <a href="?t=3&amp;A=1665&amp;format=xml"><strong>Brian Reider</strong></a> in Ontario. Reider referred the handling of the sale to <a href="?t=3&amp;A=1666&amp;format=xml"><strong>George Reyes</strong></a> and Hosking in the firm&rsquo;s Riverside office. <br /> <br /> Stinkney had moved the Quakes in 1993 from San Bernardino to Rancho Cucamonga, where the team has led the league in attendance every season. The team plays in the Epicenter, so named because the stadium sits in the San Bernardino County town of Rancho Cucamonga near earthquake faults.</p> </div>Client Successes19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Southern California Water Districts Win Federal Case Involving Camp Pendleton<div style="margin-top: 10px"> <p><strong>Los Angeles _ </strong>A federal judge yesterday ruled in favor of two Southern California water districts in a case that involved breach of contract and water rights claims brought against them by the U.S. government and a neighboring water district.</p> <p>The 120-page ruling issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall ends years of legal action and disputes over the Santa Margarita River watershed, a large watershed that serves thousands of residents in Riverside and San Diego counties.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;The case resolves years of litigation and puts to rest a lot of issues that have been in contention for a very long time,&rdquo; said Piero Dallarda, one of the attorneys for Best Best &amp; Krieger who tried the case during a nine-week trial in 2008. The firm represented Rancho California Water District.</p> <p>The judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs, the United States Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton and the Fallbrook Public Utility District, failed to prove damages in their case against Temecula-based Rancho California Water District and Perris-based Eastern Municipal Water District.</p> <p>The judge also found that the water management practices of Rancho California Water District did not endanger in any way the water supply at Camp Pendleton, as the plaintiffs had alleged.&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;In summary, plaintiffs have not proven they are entitled to relief under their water rights claims, their breach of contract claims, or any other claims asserted at the trial of this matter,&rdquo; Marshall wrote in her ruling.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>Specifically, the judge found that Rancho California Water District did not breach the&nbsp;1990 contract involving the amount of treated wastewater it sends&nbsp;into the river&rsquo;s watershed, which flows downstream to Camp Pendleton. The Marine base uses the water from the river&rsquo;s watershed as its water supply.</p> <p>In the lawsuit filed in 2003, the plaintiffs had claimed the districts had breached the contract to place two million gallons of water a day into the river. The San Diego Water Quality Control Board had granted Rancho California Water District a permit to conduct a pilot project for five years but later denied the district a permanent permit.</p> <p>Instead, the district intermittently sent its treated water in a pipeline to the Santa Ana River, where another pipeline takes it to the Pacific Ocean.</p> <p>&ldquo;We were able to show the judge that the district did its utmost to do everything it could to make this contract work and manages its water resources well,&rdquo; Dallarda said.</p> <p>The ruling prevents the defendants from having to spend $300 million to buy additional water sources for Camp Pendleton or to build a desalination plant sought by the base to remove the salt from the water in the river basin.</p> </div>Client Successes05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Best & Krieger Wins Case for School District<span class="subtitle">Attorney Jack B. Clarke, Jr. Wins On All Claims</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p>July 23, 2009</p> <p>An administrative law judge ruled in favor of Moreno Valley Unified School District in a special education case handled by Jack B. Clarke, Jr. of Best Best &amp; Krieger.</p> <p>In a due process request filed by the student last December, a student accused the district of failing to provide him a free appropriate public education, known as FAPE, for his special education needs. The district filed its own due process request a month later.</p> <p>The district alleged that its individual education plan issued on Nov. 13 had provided a FAPE. The district further claimed that it should be allowed to conduct its own medical assessment of the student, over the parents&rsquo; objection, if the parents wanted the district to provide special education and related services to the student.</p> <p>After a 14-day hearing that spanned over three months, the judge issued her decision on July 14, ruling entirely in favor of Clarke's arguments. She denied all of the student&rsquo;s claims for relief, and said the district may obtain a medical assessment of the student.</p> </div>Client Successes23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Prevails in Suit Against Wal-Mart Project<span class="subtitle">Attorney John Brown Leads Case to Favorable Court Ruling</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p><em>The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin<br /> </em>July 9, 2009</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ONTARIO - A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of the city, stating the environmental report for the planned Wal-Mart supercenter is sufficient and adequately outlines any health threats posed to residents.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez, however, has ordered the city to conduct a new supplemental environment report on one issue raised: the project's impact to traffic safety at the intersection of Mountain Avenue and Fifth Street.<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The City Council approved the project in 2007. After an 18-month legal battle, the city now could proceed on the project, starting first with the supplemental environmental report, said <strong>John Brown</strong>, the city's attorney.&nbsp;<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The site - which was once was home to a Target, Food 4 Less and Toys &quot;R&quot; Us - has been under contention by residents in the Ontario Mountain Village Association who are opposed to the city's decision to allow the 24-hour discount store there.<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In 2007 residents filed a lawsuit, claiming the approval of the project did not meet standards set by the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.&nbsp;<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;We have, by and large, prevailed across the board in the Wal-Mart case,&quot; Brown said.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To read the entire story, <a target="_blank" href="">click here</a>.</p> </div>Client Successes09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Jack B. Clarke, Jr. Leads School Case to Victory<span class="subtitle">Federal Judge Sides With School District In Records Dispute</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p><em>The Press-Enterprise<br /> </em>June 2, 2009</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RIVERSIDE - A federal judge on Monday handed the Jurupa Unified School District a victory in its battle with one of its board members -- dismissing a lawsuit filed by trustee Noreen Considine that challenged the district's handling of confidential student records.<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In his ruling, U.S. District Judge George H. King said he had no jurisdiction in the matter because the federal law Considine sued under -- the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act -- did not give individuals the right to sue over the handling of student records.<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But King added that even if he did have jurisdiction, he would decline to intrude &quot;on what is, in essence, a policy disagreement between duly elected Board Members of the Jurupa School District.&quot;<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; He granted the motion without leave to amend, meaning Considine's attorney cannot retool the lawsuit and file it again.<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;It's rather striking,&quot; school district legal counsel <strong>Jack B.</strong> <strong>Clarke Jr</strong>. said of the judge's language.<br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;It really shows that the judge did not believe the case had merit,&quot; he said.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="">Click here</a> to read the entire story.</p> </div>Client Successes02 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Victory<span class="subtitle">Attorney Michelle Ouellette wins tentative appeals court ruling involving British owner of Fresh &amp; Easy markets</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p><em>The Press-Enterprise<br /> </em>Feb. 20, 2009</p> <p>An appeals court has overturned a judge's ruling that the Tesco grocery distribution center near Riverside must undergo environmental reviews separate from those already conducted for the surrounding business park off Interstate 215.<br /> ...<br /> Under the ruling, Tesco will not have to shut down its distribution center, which opened in 2007, or receive new environmentnal reviews by the March Joint Powers Authority, which approved the project.<br /> ...<br /> &quot;Obviously, we're pleased with the ruling,&quot; joint powers authority attorney <strong>Michelle Ouellette</strong> said Friday. &quot;We've always asserted that the JPA complied with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) in its actions.&quot;</p> <p>To view the entire story, visit <a href="">The Press-Enterprise Web site</a>.</p> </div>Client Successes20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Successfully Defends Client in Racial Discrimination/Retaliation Case<span class="subtitle">Daniel Villanueva v. City of Colton</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p>BB&amp;K Partner John Higginbotham represented the City of Colton in <em>Daniel Villanueva v. City of Colton</em>.&nbsp;The case involved claims by an employee that he was suspended and later included in a reduction-in-force because of his race, and in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity.&nbsp;BB&amp;K prevailed on summary judgment, and then brought a motion for recovery of its attorney fees against the employee.&nbsp;The motion was granted in its entirety, resulting in a judgment of over $44,000 against the plaintiff.&nbsp;On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety and decided to publish the case.</p> </div>Client Successes18 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800 Settles Complex Overtime Class Action For Nuisance Value<span class="subtitle">John Crowe v. BB&amp;K Client</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p>BB&amp;K Partner John Higginbotham represented a local trucking company in a overtime class action involving a class of over 200 drivers, none of whom had ever been paid overtime.&nbsp;The class was represented by a successful attorney who had achieved large settlements from numerous other similarly situated trucking companies in the five years leading up to this case.&nbsp;Rather than simply going through the motions and ultimately allowing its client to write a very large check, BB&amp;K asserted a novel defense that California&rsquo;s overtime was preempted by federal law due to the fact that some of the product hauled by its client had previously been brought into California by rail, and that the ultimate delivery of the product by truck was a &ldquo;continuation&rdquo; of interstate commerce.&nbsp;Facing the prospect of complete defeat, the class settled the claim for literally pennies on the dollar.</p> </div>Client Successes16 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800 Settles Wage And Hour Class Action For Pennies On The Dollar<span class="subtitle">Carlton Morris v. BB&amp;K Client</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px;"> <p>BB&amp;K Partners John Higginbotham and Michael Summerour represented an international trucking company in a class action involving multiple alleged wage and hour violations, a class of thousands of drivers and potential eight figure liability.&nbsp;Before plaintiffs could move for class certification, BB&amp;K brought a motion for summary judgment based on the novel argument that plaintiffs&rsquo; claims were barred by the commerce clause in the United States Constitution.&nbsp;Shortly before that motion was to be heard, class counsel agreed to settle the case for approximately three percent of their claimed damages.</p> </div>Client Successes03 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800 Wins Jury Trial In Construction Dispute<span class="subtitle">MCP Industries, Inc. v. Fisher Tracks, Inc.</span> <div style="margin-top: 10px"> <p>BB&amp;K Partner John Higginbotham represented a contractor, Fisher Tracks, Inc., in protracted litigation culminating in a month long jury trial against one of its material suppliers.&nbsp;After Fisher Tracks refused to pay for allegedly defective material, a polyurethane glue used in the installation of synthetic running tracks, MCP filed a collections action seeking approximately $59,000 in damages.&nbsp;Fisher Tracks filed a cross-complaint seeking several times that amount, representing the cost of tearing out and replacing several running tracks.&nbsp;After a month long jury trial, involving extensive expert testimony on both sides, the jury reached a verdict and completed an 80-question special verdict form in less than four hours, awarding Fisher Tracks the exact amount requested in closing argument.&nbsp;The case settled shortly thereafter for the full amount of the verdict plus an additional nearly $200,000 in recognition of BB&amp;K&rsquo;s anticipated victory on a pending motion for attorneys' fees.&nbsp;At the end of the day, BB&amp;K&rsquo;s client achieved a total victory and was made completely whole.</p> </div>Client Successes05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 -0800