SOME OF OUR CASES*
(The following are non-confidential and/or brief descriptions of some of the cases of
which our clients authorized us to release the information and/or waived the attorney-client privilege)
*Past success does not guarantee future successful result for your case
INJURY / CIVIL RIGHTS / INSURANCE CASES (WE REPRESENTED THE PLAINTIFFS):
$717,500.00 (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case # PC014638): Automobile Accident Case. Plaintiff’s car rear-ended a truck which blocked a lane of Interstate 5 at an angle. The truck’s underride hit Plaintiff’s son who was the front-seat passenger, killing him instantly. Evidence showed that an SUV was able to avoid rear-ending the truck. Plaintiff’s brother who was in a car directly behind Plaintiff told the police officer at the scene that Plaintiff was traveling at 60 mph in a heavy rain at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was cited for driving too fast under the prevailing conditions in violation of Cal. Veh. Code §22350 (Click here to see the relevant part of the police report). As Plaintiff called our law firm a few days after the accident to ask us about the potential impact of the code violation and retained us, we were able to immediately pay an accident reconstructionist to go to the scene. As the truck owner refused to allow us to inspect the truck, we immediately filed the law suit, obtained the court’s permission to inspect the truck and with our experts, were able to determine that the truck previously jackknifed. We also retained a truck expert and a human factor expert. To avoid re-living the nightmare, our client/Plaintiff instructed us to settle the case close to the defendant’s insurance policy limit a few days before the jury trial was scheduled to start (Click here to see a copy of part of a check which the insurance company of the other party paid us).
$256,000.00 (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case # KC057532, East District Branch (Pomona)): Premises Liability Case. Brick wall/iron gate of an apartment patio fell, pinning our minor client between a wall and a sidewalk. Our client had a broken femur and leg pain. After reimbursing the government $6,905.24 for our client’s medical bills and paying our legal fee and other costs, our client net $183,804.07 (71.80% of the total recovery). Our client and her mother were very happy with the recovery as the defendant’s insurance company initially denied liability and our client’s injuries healed by the time of the recovery. Click her to see the photo of our client, proudly displaying the insurance company’s checks with her mother.
$170,000.00 (Alameda County Superior Court Case # VG07313175): Automobile Accident Case. Our client had to park on the shoulder of a freeway because his vehicle had a mechanical problem. While our client was waiting for a tow truck outside his car, the defendant’s vehicle hit our client’s vehicle. Although our client was outside his vehicle, he was hit by the debris and fell down the embankment. Miraculously, none of our client’s bones was broken even though he lost a lot of blood. When the defendant ignored our settlement demand, we filed the lawsuit, flew to Oregon to take the depositions of the defendant and his employer, and retained expert witnesses in preparation for trial. A few days before trial, the defendant offered $170,000.00. Our client instructed us to accept the settlement offer and was so happy with the settlement that he asked us to take his photo and send it to a few newspapers. Click here to see our client’s photo, proudly displaying the settlement check. Click here to see a copy of the check. Click here to see a copy of the article in a Thai newspaper.
$110,000.00 (Los Angeles County Superior Court – Southeast Judicial District – Norwalk Courthouse Case # VC044932): Our client/Plaintiff was a passenger in a car which was rear-ended by a car owned by Enterprise Leasing Co. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered soft-tissue injuries. She first treated with a chiropractor. When her condition did not improve, she sought treatments at Kaiser Permanente. Plaintiff’s chiropractic bills totaled $4,230.00. Her Kaiser bills totaled $3,896.00. As the treating doctor at Kaiser restricted Plaintiff from lifting or pushing weights greater than 10 pounds, and from standing or walking continuously for more than 10 minutes, Plaintiff’s employer refused to allow Plaintiff to work as a nurse with such restrictions. Defendants argued that Plaintiff could have worked somewhere else, and tried to imply that the doctor ordered the restrictions for Plaintiff because Plaintiff worked for Kaiser even though Plaintiff treated at a different Kaiser location than where Plaintiff worked and that Plaintiff did not know the doctor. The case did not settle at the mediation. Defendants later offered $20,00.00 to settle Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff rejected the offer. We then proceeded to spend close to $10,000.00 to retain experts in preparation for the jury trial. On the second day of the scheduled trial dates, the case settled for $110,000.00. The judge who helped settle the case, told Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that the case was the largest settlement or verdict for soft-tissue injury cases over which he presided.
$250,000.00 Negligent Hiring Case (Due to the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement, we can not disclose the identity of the defendants, their attorneys, insurer, or the case number): After being asked not to return to a pub, our client returned to the pub and was escorted out of the pub to the street by its doorman. Although witnesses saw the doorman sucker punched and kicked our client until our client lost consciousness, the doorman claimed that it was self-defense. Our client was hospitalized for a week. The hospital record shows that our client’s BAC (blood alcohol content/concentration) was .27 which is extremely high (In California, an adult driver is presumed to be driving under the influence or drunk when his/her BAC level is .08 if he/she drives a car or .04 he/she drives a tractor/trailer). The jury in the criminalcase agreed with the doorman and found the doorman not guilty, possibly in part because our client could not recall the incident (This criminal case was handled by the District Attorney Office). After our client retained us, we filed a civil law suit against the pub owners and its doorman. After conducting extensive discoveries including deposing witnesses, we were ready to proceed to trial. However, the insurer of the pub agreed to settle the case at a private mediation for $250,000.
$700,000.00 (Automobile accident case settled at a private mediation in front of a highly respected mediator/arbitrator). Both our client’s daughter and the defendant’s son were killed in an automobile accident. The defense counsel produced our client’s daughter medical records showing that she might not have lived longer than two years anyway even if she was not killed in the accident. We argued among other things that a parent should never predecease her child. Although we recommended that our client takes the case to trial after spending money on expert witnesses, our elderly client preferred not to re-live the pain through trial and instructed us to accept the settlement offer. (Click here to see a copy of the check which the insurance company of the other party paid us).
$285,000.00 (District Court of Tarrant County Case # 348-191845-02): Although Defendant’s truck rear-ended Plaintiff’s car, Defendant’s insurer claimed that the accident was not his insured-driver’s fault and alleged that Plaintiff made up the injuries as Plaintiff stayed at the hospital only 3 days and did not go back for a surgery until almost six months after the accident. Due to the distance, we worked with a local counsel. Attorney Champon was admitted pro hac vice in Texas to represent Plaintiff in this case. After we filed a law suit, Defendant’s insurer accepted our client’s $285,000.00 settlement demand. (Click here to see a copy of the check which the insurance company of the other party paid us)
$3,117,227.80 (San Diego County Superior Court – Vista Judicial District Case # N67288): A car driven by a drunk driver/Defendant hit the car driven by Plaintiff’s wife, killing her at the scene. We obtained a $3,117,227.80 judgment on behalf of Plaintiff.
$385,000.00 (Bridgeport Superior Court – Fairfield Judicial District Case # CV-93-0302413S): Automobile accident case. Due to severe weather conditions, the traffic in front of Plaintiff’s car stopped. Plaintiff’s son felt an impact from his rear and got out of Plaintiff’s car to inspect the front of Plaintiff’s car in the middle of the road. While Plaintiff’s son was standing between the two cars, Defendant’s car rear-ended Plaintiff’s car, causing it to hit Plaintiff’s son. Due to the distance, we worked with local counsel to file a law suit against the defendant. Attorney Champon was admitted pro hac vice in Connecticut to represent Plaintiff in this case. The case settled at the court house before trial.
$105,000.00 (Sacramento Superior Court Case # 34-2012-00117989): Automobile accident case. As the defendant is judgment proof, our client instructed us to accept the defendant’s $100,000.00 liability policy limit plus $5,000.00 medical payment policy limit. Our client net $68,416.08 (65.16% of $105,000.00) after paying all medical bills, costs and attorney’s fee.
$92,500.00 (Orange County Superior Court Case # 30-2011-00504474): Automobile accident Case. The first offer was $52,500.00. Our client who was a foreign student, was ready to accept the first offer because although she was taken to a nearby hospital and had lacerations, she had no broken bone. We advised her that the offer was too low considering the hospital bills and her injuries. She authorized us to file the law suit. The case later settled for $92,500.00.
$90,000.00 (Glendale Superior Court Case # EC 052811): TRIP AND FALL CASE on Mother’s Day in the parking lot area of a restaurant. As a result of the trip and fall, our client had pain, abrasions and swelling of her elbows and knees. As our client did not have any fracture, she was happy with her recovery against both the restaurant owner and the parking lot paving company and authorized our law firm to release her photo. Click here to see the photo of our client, proudly displaying the settlement check.
$195,000.00 Dog Bite Case (Los Angeles Superior Court Case BC626442): Our client was bitten by a dog which came through a fence of an empty lot. The landowner claimed that our client entered his land without permission and that the dog belonged to an employee who had no permission to keep the dog on his land. After we filed the law suit and deposed the landowner and some discoveries, the landowner who had no insurance, agreed to pay our client $195,000.00. Click here to see a copy of the check and click here to see our happy client dance, holding the check.
$65,866.56: Dog Bite Case: Our client was bitten by a dog. As our client’s medical bills totaled less than $2,000.00, she was very happy and authorized our law firm to release her photo. Click here to see the photo of our client, proudly displaying the settlement check.
$750,000.00 (United States District Court-Eastern District of California Case # 2:06-CV-01426-LKK-DAD; Glenn County Superior Court Case # 05NCR02744; Butte County Superior Court Case # SCR51353)(We are one of the two law firms which represented the plaintiff in the civil right case / the defendant in the criminal cases).
$42,000,000.00 (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case # BC 156 849): Plaintiff/A general contractor who bought insurance under his fictitious business name, was sued by a homeowner. His insurance company started defending him but later stopped to do so. A judgment was entered against him. Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection. The homeowner objected to the discharge. The bankruptcy court did not discharge the judgment. After being turned down by several lawyers, Plaintiff consulted our law firm. Although we told Plaintiff that we had been in practice at that time (1995) only for a few years, Plaintiff told us that Plaintiff could not find anyone and retained us. At first, the insurance company’s lawyers laughed at us and refused to respond to several of our discoveries. We filed motions to compel responses. The court ordered that the insurance company produce several boxes of documents and and that its lawyer pay us several sanctions totaling several thousand dollars. The insurance company then filed a motion for summary judgment. We filed the opposition on behalf of our client. Attorney Champon successfully argued the case on behalf of our client and the court ruled in our client’s favor. After we successfully opposed the motion for summary judgment, the main remaining issue in the case in a lay person’s words (at this point) was “who would the jury believe”. A few weeks later, the insurance company made a six-figure settlement offer. We rejected the offer. Plaintiff then substituted in another law firm which spent over a hundred thousand dollar in expert witness fees and costs to try the case and was awarded $42 million judgment. The case later settled for a smaller 7-figure amount. It has been almost two decades since our law firm first worked on the case and we now have sufficient resources and expertise to try these types of cases.
We have always put our clients’ interests above ours. We let our clients make the decision whether or not to accept reasonable offers. We would not gamble with our clients’ settlement money by taking our clients’ cases to trial just to get large verdicts under our name even if there is no insurance coverage or the defendants have no non-exempt asset. However, if the defendants or their insurance company refuse to make any reasonable offer, we will take the case to trial and even to the court of appeal if the insurance company still refuses to pay our client. Below is one of such cases:
Fact: The husband of our client fell from his employer’s truck in a dark area of his employer’s large parking lot. Although he lost consciousness, no one witnessed the fall. As he felt fine after he awakened, he walked to his personal car nearby and drove home. Three and a half months later, he passed away at home. Click here to read the trial court’s summary of the testimony in court.
Offer: The defendant which was represented by a large law firm, first denied the claim, then offered $20,000.00 on the day of trial.
Trial Result: The trial court in Los Angeles ruled that the death resulted from the fall at the employer’s parking lot. Click here to read the trial court’s summary of the testimony in court.
Motion for Reconsideration: The defendant then made a motion for reconsideration to the higher court. The higher court held in our client’s favor and denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals (2nd District): The defendant then appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeals which held in our client’s favor. The court of appeals also ordered the defendant to pay us an additional legal fee of $11,600.00 for appealing the case without a reasonable basis (Court of Appeal Case Number B271785)
We obtained for our client the statutory maximum $255,000.00 amount for one dependent (This is the maximum allowed by law for this type of claim for one dependent) PLUS penalties and interests of $31,378.38, totaling $281,378.38 in addition to the $11,600.00 for additional legal fee for appealing the case without a reasonable basis to the 2nd district court of appeals.
INJURY / WRONGFUL DEATH DEFENSE CASES (WE REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANTS):
Orange County Superior Court Case Number 07CC11576: The plaintiff’s father died of “acute polypharmacy intoxication” in a resident care facility operated by our client. The plaintiff alleged wrongful death, dependent adult abuse and negligent hiring causes of action for purportedly providing alcohol to the decedent. The plaintiff initially asked for $6 million then made a “final demand” for $200,000 at the court mandatory settlement conference. A few days before trial after we retained experts, our client instructed us to settle the case for $5,000 in installments as a nuisance value.
IMMIGRATION CASES:
EMPLOYMENT CASES:
Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC372098: Our client was fired when she was pregnant. However, she mitigated the damage by obtaining an employment at a higher hourly rate with another employer. Defendant disputed that it had 5 or more employees and therefore would not be liable for attorney fee if it lost the case. Shortly before trial, the defendant agreed to pay our client $30,000.00.
BANKRUPTCY / DEFENSE CASES (WE REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANTS/DEBTORS):
SOMETIMES, OUR EXPERIENCES IN OTHER AREAS OF LAW HELPED OUR CLIENTS AVOIDED BANKRUPTCY. BELOW IS ONE OF SUCH CASES:
WE REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT: Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number TC016559: The defendant-owner of a car which was driven by her son and which caused very serious injuries to plaintiffs, was uninsured at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs sued the defendant in a California state court. After the court entered default, the defendant went to see an attorney who incorrectly helped her filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy. When the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to appear at an order to show cause hearing, the court dismissed the defendant and notified the plaintiffs’ attorneys. When the plaintiffs filed a large proof of claim and pointed out to the bankruptcy court that the total unsecured debts which included over $600,000 automobile accident claim, exceeded the statutory limits for Chapter 13, the bankruptcy court dismissed the case. The defendant then came to us to file bankruptcy. As she indicated to us that she preferred to avoid bankruptcy and had sufficient resources to pay the owner liability limit, we recommended that she do not file bankruptcy and proceeded to offer to pay the plaintiffs the owner’s $30,000-per-accident liability limit. Although the plaintiffs rejected the offer, the plaintiffs’ attorneys did not take further action until 26 months after the court dismissed the California state court case and 23 months after the bankruptcy court dismissed the defendant Chapter 13 bankruptcy when the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a motion to set aside the dismissal. On behalf of the defendant, we filed the opposition. Attorney Champon argued the case against the other party/plaintiff’s attorney who was named Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers magazine. After hearing the evidence, the court ruled in our client/defendant’s favor. Our client/defendant did not have to file bankruptcy and did not have to pay the plaintiffs at all.
FAMILY LAW CASES:
ALTHOUGH WE WILL GIVE OUR CLIENT OUR BEST OPINIONS AND RECOMMEND THAT SHE/HE PUT ASIDE HER/HIS PERSONAL FEELING AND SETTLE HIS/HER CASE, WE ARE EXPERIENCED ENOUGH TO LITIGATE HER/HIS CASE TO PROTECT HER/HIS INTERESTS. BELOW IS ONE OF SUCH CASES:
Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BD403169: Although the petitioner and our client held a large ceremony at a Buddhist temple, held each other as husband and wife, had a child together, and filed joint tax returns for over 10 years, they had never obtained a marriage certificate. Although they bought only a house under both of their names, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce, spousal support and equal division of all other properties which were held in our client’s name only. After we were retained by our client, we proposed that the petitioner and our client share only the house which was held under both their name and that our client keep all other properties held under his name alone. The petitioner rejected the offer and insisted on spousal support. We filed the points and authorities to oppose the petition. After the hearing, the court ruled in our client’s favor.
Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number KD080595: While he was a resident in another state, our client won a $2.5 million California Super Lotto. After all taxes, he net approximately $1.67 million. After sixteen years of marriage including eight years of lavish living after the lottery winning, his wife filed for a divorce, obtained ex-parte the court order based on her declaration to freeze the remaining assets of approx. $400,000.00, and insisted on keeping the entire amount, claiming that our client had been hiding assets. Our client then retained our law firm. After analyzing the facts and researching the law, we proposed that the parties split equally the remaining assets. Through her attorney, the wife refused. We sent written discovery requests and deposed the wife. When the wife and her attorney refused to work out reasonable responses to our discovery requests, we sought and obtained a court order, ordering both of them to pay our client $2,580.00 in sanctions and give us responses to our special interrogatory and demands for production. The wife through her attorney still refused to settle for a reasonable division of the remaining assets. The case went to trial. At the trial, we argued that evidence and testimony about our client’s wasting assets should not be admissible based on case law. The court ruled in our favor. The wife through her attorney agreed to equal division of remaining assets exactly as we proposed right shortly after we were retained by our client.
REAL ESTATE CASES:
DEPOSIT CASE: Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 07K22285: Our client made a $13,400.00 deposit into an escrow to buy a real property. The seller through his attorney claimed in part that our client waived the loan contingency in the California Association of Realtors form after 17 days and refused to instruct the escrow to return the deposit. We filed the law suit and took the deposition of the seller’s real estate agent who testified that the seller’s attorney was also her attorney. The case went totrial. The court held in our client’s favor and ordered that the seller pay our client back the $13,400.00 deposit. We then filed a motion to request attorney fee and costs. Although the seller’s attorney appeared in court to oppose the motion, the court added to the original judgment $2,122.00 in interest, $12,500.00 in attorney fee and $1,775.00 in costs for a total judgment of $29,797.00.
BROKER LIABILITY CASE: Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number YC066522: Our client bought a restaurant business for $68,000.00 through a real estate broker who represented both the buyer and the seller. Although the landlord told the broker that there was a 5-year lease option but it would not grant another option, the broker advised our client that there was an option to renew the lease for another 5 years when in fact, the only option was already exercised and that there was no unexercised option left. Approximately two years later, the lease expired and the landlord refused to renew the lease. We filed the law suit on behalf of our client. After experts designation and a few days before the binding arbitration, the broker agreed to settle the case for $80,000.00 which was $12,000.00 more than the purchase price of the restaurant.
BREACH OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY SALE AGREEMENT: San Bernardino Superior Court Case Number CIVRS1005521: Our client sold a gas/service station and minimart business which is located on his land to a buyer. About a year later, the buyer refused to pay rent, contending that the air conditioning system was not sufficient. The buyer retained a highly-rated law firm to represent him at the arbitration hearing pursuant to the lease. A retired judge who served as the arbitrator, rendered an $81,449.47 award in favor of our client. The award included $20,800 in attorney’s fees and $10,282.50 in costs. The court confirmed the award and entered the judgment. We are in the process of seeking additional attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party per the lease agreement.
QUIET TITLE ACTION CASE: Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number YC058856: We obtained a court order to cancel the forged deed and a judgment in favor of our clients for$154,000.00 which included $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $100,000.00 in punitive damages.
(We are currently litigating many real estate cases. Several cases will soon go to trial. We will obtain permission from our clients to post information about the cases after their final resolutions)
BREACH OF CONTRACT CASES:
$150,000.00 Breach of “Letter of Intent”: Defendant signed a “Letter of Intent” with our clients/Plaintiffs, agreeing to sell Defendant’s pharmacy for $1,460,000.00 to our clients. Our clients gave the sales agent a check for $50,000.00 to be deposited into escrow. The parties further agreed that the defendant would not negotiate with any other prospective purchasers before 26 days from the execution of the agreement. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, another letter of intent from another buyers arrived four days later, offering $1,510,000.00. Defendant met with these new buyers the next day and signed a final purchase and sale agreement two days later. Defendant then sought a matching price from Plaintiffs five days later. Plaintiffs refused and Defendant refused to sign the final purchase and sale agreement with Plaintiffs and refused to sell the pharmacy to Plaintiffs. After extensive litigation, we obtained a judgment on behalf of our clients.
$100,000.00 Breach of Contract: We recovered $100,000 for a small business client against a large Japanese company for breaching a relatively small contract after extensive litigation. Due to the confidentiality agreement, we can not disclose the name of the company.
BREACH OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY SALE AGREEMENT: San Bernardino Superior Court Case Number CIVRS1005521: Our client sold a gas/service station and minimart business which is located on his land to a buyer. About a year later, the buyer refused to pay rent, contending that the air conditioning system was not sufficient. The buyer retained a highly-rated law firm to represent him at the arbitration hearing pursuant to the lease. A retired judge who served as the arbitrator, rendered an $81,449.47 award in favor of our client. The award included $20,800 in attorney’s fees and $10,282.50 in costs. The court confirmed the award and entered the judgment. We are in the process of seeking additional attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party per the lease agreement.
MISCELLANEOUS LITIGATION CASES:
COPYRIGHT DEFENSE CASE: Our client was sued for more than $10 million dollars plus punitive damages and attorney fees and costs for importing & reselling non-copyrighted books in the US. Discovery revealed that more than $5 million from US buyers were deposited into our client’s account. Our client was very happy that we were able to help him settle the case for $20,000 in installments of $500 per month after some discoveries and a motion. (NOTE: For those of you who are not familiar with this type of cases, copyright cases can result in millions of dollars in judgments).
CAR SUBLEASE SCAM CASE: WE REPRESENTED ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS in Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC320595: Our Thai immigrant client who is one of the defendants, responded to an employment/business advertisement by someone who identified himself as Impong Alex Luanglath (“Defedant #2”). After he was “hired”, he was scammed into the use of his name and identity as a borrower to finance the purchase or lease of vehicles which were then sub-leased or sold by the company to third-parties. Our client was paid $8,000.00 for his work at the company. Some of the vehicles were later stolen by a criminal enterprise associated with the company and the other defendant. The enterprise’s operation was later broken by the authorities. The plaintiff who is a dentist, claimed to have bought a Range Rover on an installment contract and had paid over $32,000.00 to the company. The vehicle was later repossessed by the bank for defaults in payments. The plaintiff sued our client and Defendant #2 under Cal. Penal Code Section 570 et seq. and Civil Code Section 3343.5 for unlawfully subleasing a vehicle and fraud. The plaintiff later dismissed Defendant #2, probably because the plaintiff could not locate him and chose not to apply for an order to publish the summons and complaint. We were subsequently informed that Defendant #2 was arrested in Thailand and later extradited to California. On behalf of our client, we argued that 3 of the 5 conditions of the code were not met and that there was no fraud because there was no intent to defraud. We recommended that our client reject the plaintiff’s $20,000.00 final cash demand and proceeded to trial. We filed all the trial documents and served the plaintiff through his attorney with a notice to appear. Although our client and Attorney Champon showed up at trial, the plaintiff did not. After the plaintiff failed to show up at the order to show cause hearing, the court dismissed the case. Our defendant-client did not have to pay the plaintiff at all.
SWEATY-PALM SCAM CASE: WE REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT-VICTIM-PATIENT in Orange County Superior Court Case Number 03NL43491: Our out-of-state client who is a victim-patient, was sued by a doctor after our client’s health insurance company denied payment to the doctor even though the doctor and his “representative” assured our client that she would not have to pay anything if the health insurance company chose not to cover the sweaty-palm surgery. We filed a cross-complaint against the doctor, his collection agency, and his representative. We recommended that our client retain the service of an attorney in her state to determine whether she had a case against her health insurance company that she purchased in her state. The doctor and his collection agency dismissed the case against our client. The representative later agreed to pay our client her attorney fee and costs. We subsequently learned that the doctor and his representatives were arrested as part of the sweaty-palm scam.
SOMETIMES, THE CASES WHICH WE ARE THE PROUDEST OF, ARE NOT ALWAYS THE CASES
WHICH MADE US THE MOST MONEY. BELOW ARE SOME OF SUCH CASES:
Orange County Superior Court Case Number 06CC11830: Responding to a petition by approximately 200 Laotian immigrants in the Orange-Riverside area, we spent hundreds of hours pro bono (without charging any legal fee) representing a temple in various motions and a trial to successfully recover a temple against a “monk” Vongsavanh Sirivongsa who filed conflicting declarations under penalty of perjury and testified at his deposition and trial that he owned the temple by himself, that the Buddhist community donated money to him to buy the temple as his residence, and that the people occasionally rented the temple from him for various ceremonies. Some of the people who signed the petition also told us that the “monk” violated all sorts of Buddhist tenets including eating dinners and watching porno movies. The “monk” initially claimed in his declaration under penalty of perjury that there was no document relating to the creation of the temple by the immigrant community. One of the co-founder and a son of the deceased co-founder of the temple and Attorney Champon worked many nights until after 1 am, shifting through boxes of documents collected from the community to disprove the “monk”‘s claims. Although the “monk” was represented by three very experienced trial attorneys, he was sanctioned more than $5,000.00 and we also successfully obtained a judgment against the “monk” after trial that our client was the proper board of directors, and that the temple owned the temple and not the “monk”. Before the court held a hearing to determine how much the monk contributed his personal funds that he had before he joined the temple and earned after he joined the temple, our client instructed us to inform the court that the board agreed to pay the monk back the relatively small sum that he brought to the temple plus reasonable returns (which were probably used to pay the monk’s attorney fees) as the monk produced checks paid from his personal account before he joined the temple and our client did not have sufficient evidence to rebut them. Click here to watch an excerpt of the video of the “monk”‘s deposition.
San Diego Superior Court Case Number M704461/VD1753: Although Attorney Champon conducted bench trials earlier, this was his first jury trial in 1993. A group of immigrants gathered at the groom’s house for a party according to their customs. The party is equivalent to an American bachelor party. A neighbor did not like the gathering and called the police. When a police officer arrived, he found drugs in front of the house, arrested and charged a young immigrant who stood near them with a felony for possessing drugs for sale. The case was later dropped to a misdemeanor. The officer who stood fairly far, testified that he witnessed the immigrant taking the drugs from his pocket and dumped them on the floor. The young immigrant was well like at his work and had been working for a private firm which had contracted with the federal government and would lose his job if he pleaded guilty to such misdemeanor. Attorney Champon agreed to represent the immigrant on a highly reduced fee and was able to successfully convince the jury not to convict the immigrant. After the jury trial, the case against our client was dismissed.
Orange County Superior Court Case Number FU99NM05089: A successful immigrant who recently moved to a rich neighborhood, joined a local health spa. A 17-year-old male who was bigger than the immigrant, accused the immigrant of exposing his private part, touching him without his permission while he was in a health spa, and reported the matter to the police. The district attorney filed a complaint against the immigrant for public exposure and sexual battery against a minor. Conviction of both charges would have subjected the immigrant to deportation. At the jury trial, the immigrant was nervous and forgot his wife’s birthday and anniversary date on cross-examination. Over the objection of the district attorney, Attorney Champon qualified a Buddhist monk as an expert witness to testify that birthdays and anniversaries were not routinely celebrated in the immigrant community. Although the 17-year old male giggled and finally admitted at trial that he did not look at the immigrant’s private part, we were only successful in convincing the jury to acquit the immigrant of public exposure (find not guilty). The judge placed the immigrant on probation (no jail time). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Now, the USCIS) then started a deportation case against the immigrant. Attorney Champon represented the immigrant at the immigration court and successfully convinced the immigration judge to dismiss the immigration case against the immigrant. The immigrant was allowed to remain in the US, has never been charged with any other crimes, and will be sworn in as a US citizen in a few months.
Riverside County Small Claim Appeal Case Number BAS003946: Attorney Champon defended pro bono (FREE) six immigrants who did not speak English against bogus claims by a plaintiff/immigrant of the same community for furniture and equipments of a “non-profit” corporation in small claim appeals. This plaintiff who was one of the few immigrants in his community, who spoke English well, threatened to file lawsuits against anyone who did not pay him a recurring fee to join his funeral organization. When six immigrants refused to join his organization, he filed six separate lawsuits against the six non-English-speaking immigrants who resided in Banning area and was able to convince a small claim judge based on forged documents to believe him as he spoke English better than other six immigrants-defendants. As these six immigrants did not have any money to retain us, Attorney Champon agreed to represent them pro bono (without charging any legal fee), helped them filed the appeals for trials de novo, filed the motion to dismiss, and successfully convinced the presiding Superior Court judge to dismiss all claims by the plaintiff.
(PLEASE CALL US AT 800-993-7999 OR CHECK BACK LATER FOR A LIST OF OTHER LARGER CASES WHICH WE WILL POST AFTER WE OBTAIN OUR CLIENTS’ AUTHORIZATION. SOME OF OUR CLIENTS WOULD LIKE TO FIRST KNOW THE NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE INFORMATION WOULD BE RELEASED)
To weed out junk emails, we decided not to publish our email addresses on our web site. However, you may send us your message by completing and submitting the form below. If you do not hear from us within 24 hours, please feel free to call us at 1-800-993-7999.
Contact Information