We are proud of the results we obtain for our clients. Some of those results include:
Xiologix LLC v. Jason Sparks (District of Oregon): We represented a regional technology company against a former high-level, long-term employee, on claims that he had misappropriated trade secrets. The former employee filed multi-million dollar counterclaims alleging that he was a one-third owner in the company. Our client obtained temporary and permanent injunctive relief on its misappropriation claims. At deposition, the former employee was confronted with evidence that he had deleted the hard drive of his primary work computer within hours of receiving an evidence preservation letter from our firm. He agreed to settle his counterclaims for nuisance value less than a week later.
Mouraveiko v. Computer Friends, et al. (Multnomah County Circuit Court): Represented an alleged owner of a privately held business in business torts case. We were retained on the eve of trial and with motions for discovery sanctions pending against our client. We defeated the motions for sanctions and obtained a defense verdict at trial.
Individual Client v. National Grocery Store Chain (private arbitration): We prevailed in 5 day arbitration proceeding on behalf of our client, a former assistant manager at a large regional grocery store chain. The arbitrator found that our client had been misclassified as exempt from the California overtime laws and had been improperly denied overtime pay. Our work yielded over $500,000 in total recovery, including back wages, attorneys fees, interest and retroactive stock-plan contributions.
Javansalehi v. B.F. & Associates (Multnomah County Circuit Court & District of Oregon): We defended a regional retailer of imported rugs in companion suits brought by two former employees in two different courts, alleging 25 total causes of action. We obtained summary judgment on 20 of those causes of action, and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their remaining claims shortly thereafter. In a pre-trial motion, we successfully argued for application of the fluctuating workweek measure of overtime damages for the plaintiff’s FLSA misclassification claim — a first in Oregon.
Meyrovich v. Obert (Multnomah County Circuit Court): We represented the plaintiff, a former criminal defendant, in a legal malpractice claim against his former criminal defense attorney arising from botched advice regarding the application of Oregon’s three-strikes felony rule to the plaintiff’s case. Although all of the underlying facts occurred in rural and conservative Malheur County, we were able to defeat the defendant’s attempt to move the case there from Multnomah County. By keeping the case in plaintiff-friendly Portland, we were able to ultimately obtain a positive result for our client.
Ott v. CLP, Inc. (District of Oregon): Representation of national staffing company in worker’s compensation discrimination case. After removing the case to federal district court, we moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s case and an award of attorneys fees. In response, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss his case and pay a portion of our client’s attorneys fees.
Gaither v. John Q. Hammons Hotels (Multnomah County Circuit Court): We brought claims on behalf of our client against his former employer for racial harassment and discrimination. We also alleged that our client’s former supervisor should be held personally liable for aiding and abetting the harassment. The defendant tried to move the case to federal district court by arguing that the individual supervisor could not be held personally liable for his role in the harassment. We convinced the judge to depart from precedent and allow the aiding and abetting claim against the supervisor to proceed — a first in Oregon. The case stayed in Multnomah County and resolved shortly thereafter.
Current Cases and Investigations
We are currently handling the following matters:
Wrigth v. Lyft (Western District of Washington): With co-counsel, we represent the Plaintiff in this putative nation-wide class action under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227 (“TCPA”) and Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190.010, et seq. (“CEMA”) to redress Lyft’s practice of sending unsolicited text messages advertising its commercial ride-sharing service. The case is ongoing.
Smith v. GC Micro (Sonoma County California Circuit Court): We represent the Plaintiff in this putative California state wage and hour class action to redress Defendant GC Micro’s practice of classifying its Sales Associates and Account Managers as exempt and denying them overtime wages. The case is ongoing.
Yi v. Kroger (King County Superior Court): We represent Oregon and Washington plaintiffs in a putative class-action against regional grocery store chain QFC to redress its practice of time-card rounding. Instead of paying employees for all hours they actually work, QFC, Fred Meyer and Kroger round employee hours to the nearest 15-minute increment which, over time, deprives employees of pay they have earned. The case is ongoing.
Food Labeling Claims (Oregon, Washington and California): We are currently investigating potential class actions against companies that mislead consumers by labeling food products as “All Natural”, “100% Natural”, or “Made Only From Natural Ingredients.” Many food products that make such claims actually contain artificial, factory-created ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, or maltodextrin, yet fetch a premium price because of their perceived value. This practice violates state consumer protection laws and is widespread.
Another common deceptive practice is to claim “No MSG” or “No Added MSG” when the product actually contains hidden sources of MSG such as yeast extract, torula yeast, or dehydrated yeast. Those yeast-derived ingredients are sources of free glutamates – the very same substance that causes many consumers to suffer adverse health reactions to MSG. Food companies add yeast extracts to processed foods because they act as flavor-enhancers, but do not have to be labeled as “MSG” under FDA rulings. However, the FDA has opined that when a food product contains sources of free glutamates, such as yeast extract, it cannot claim on its label that is has “No MSG” or “No Added MSG.” Many companies continue to do so, misleading health-conscious consumers into believing their foods are free from the harmful effects of MSG.
We are actively investigating such food labeling claims. Contact us if you have purchased deceptively labeled food products.