Here are just a few of our firm’s legal victories
Lester & Cantrell wins case in matter of JFK Jr.’s stolen university files
In Brown University v. Gary Zimet, filed in the USDC Central District, Lester & Cantrell, working with Massachusetts-based Smith, Duggan, Buell & Rufo, filed suit against an on-line memorabilia vendor found to be marketing the stolen student file of John F. Kennedy Jr. The student file was stolen from Brown University in approximately 1994, and used as the basis for an article in the Star magazine. Its whereabouts were unknown prior to the attempted sale by Defendant. Lester & Cantrell obtained a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a stipulated judgment requiring the return of the original file and all copies to Brown University.
Law Firm Dismissed After Binding Arbitration
We defended a law firm in a legal malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleged the firm had mishandled a multi-million dollar real estate transaction, and subsequently mishandled litigation over the same transaction. The case proceeded to binding arbitration after the plaintiff made a seven figure settlement demand. After Mr. Lester cross-examined the plaintiff in the binding arbitration, the plaintiff dismissed the entire case without compensation.
Contractor receives 6-figure verdict against City of Rialto
Firm Receives Favorable Settlement in High Stakes Case
Complete Defense Jury Verdict at Trial
Negotiations Save Business Client Over $7 Million
Lawsuit Saves Plaintiff almost $2 Million on Parcel
Lester & Cantrell prevails in matter of Castillo v. Price Pfister, Inc., et al.
Lester & Cantrell prevailed in the Second Appellate District on behalf of Defendants Black & Decker and Stanley Black & Decker in Castillo v. Price Pfister, Inc., et al. The case involved the application of California’s potentially conflicting statutes of limitations as applied to plaintiff’s claimed in vitro toxic exposure at a foundry and plating facility. After plaintiff appealed from the granting of two summary judgments in Defendants’ favor, the justices of the Second Division unanimously held that plaintiff’s action was barred by California Civil Code Section 340.4. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that later-enacted Civil Code Section 340.8 would revive a claim that had previously lapsed according to Section 340.4. The court held that the outcome of the anticipated decision by the California Supreme Court in Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. would not impact its decision because the Castillo was already “stale” by the time Section 340.8 was adopted. [The Supreme Court did ultimately find Section 340.8 controlling over Section 340.4.]
Aerospace Contractor Dismissed During Trial
We defended an international aerospace contractor in a dispute concerning significant repairs made to a C-130 aircraft. The plaintiff was a subcontractor to our client and claimed they were owed nearly a million dollars for work performed on the aircraft. On the first day of trial, Mr. Cantrell cross-examined two of plaintiff’s key employees. Immediately after the examination, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire case without compensation.