Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
2022 Confidential Multimillion Dollar Prelitigation Settlement Against California Corporation Significant ConfidentIal Settlement (confidential pursuant to Defendants demand): Prelitigation
California Employment Lawyers / Results/Litigation

Results and Significant Pending Litigation

Current Matters Pending In California Superior Courts

Kyu Ri Kim v. University of Southern California, David C. Kang, et.al.

Case No. 24STCV21826 (LASC)

The Garza Firm is plaintiff’s counsel in this sexual and racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by a current PhD student employee against USC and its tenured professor David C. Kang, who has appointments in both (i) the Dornsife School, Political Science and International Relations, and (ii) the Marshall School of Business, and is the director of USC’s Korean Studies Institute. This lawsuit alleges that Professor Kang sexually harassed Ms. Kim, and after she demanded that he stop his illegal activity, Kang retaliated against Ms. Kim, including by forcing her out of USC’s PhD program.

Almadelia Deharo v. Kola Hotel, LLC, Vagabond Inn Corporation aka Vagabond Inn Hotels, et.al.

Case No. 30-2024-01419171-CU-OE-CJC (OCSC)

The Garza Firm is plaintiff’s counsel in this sexual assault, sexual harassment and failure to protect lawsuit brought by a former maid at the Vagabond Inn in Costa Mesa, California against her employer (owner of the property and franchise) as well as the franchisor. The lawsuit alleges that the Vagabond Inn was known to be extremely dangerous to employees and yet housekeeping staff was not provided any protection which led to plaintiff being brutally beaten and sexually assaulted by a transient while plaintiff was cleaning a motel room (that transient pleaded guilty to the sexual assault, was sentenced to 19 years in prison and is currently incarcerated).

Results

Sharyl Garza, Oscar Garza and Alex Cunny have each achieved outstanding results for their clients in significant matters for decades, and The Garza Firm continues to be involved in several high-profile matters. Some of the results obtained by Ms. Garza, Mr. Garza and Mr. Cunny, and current matters of The Garza Firm, include the following:

Jane Doe 5 v. Dr. George Tyndall and University of Southern California (USC), Case No. BC705677 (LASC)

$852 Million Global Settlement

Ms. Garza and Mr. Cunny served as lead plaintiffs’ lawyers in this high-profile litigation that took place during Ms. Garza’s and Mr. Cunny’s employment with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi. In MSF’s role as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel, Ms. Garza and Mr. Cunny were part of the core group of MSF lawyers that represented over 700 victims of sexual abuse against USC and its former student health center gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall for sexual abuse perpetrated during gynecological exams for almost three decades. Ms. Garza and Mr. Cunny were involved in all aspects of this complex litigation, including determining and implementing strategy for the litigation, leading the offensive discovery team, taking numerous depositions, and drafting and arguing multiple important motions. Ms. Garza also had significant involvement in the settlement of this matter, as one of only two plaintiffs’ lawyers in the room when the plaintiffs reached this historic settlement with USC. Ms. Garza was named 2021 Attorney of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California for her work on the Tyndall matter.

Jane Doe v. Dr. James Heaps and The Regents of the University of California (UCLA), Case No. 19STCV20594 (LASC)

$243.6 Million Settlement

The Garza Firm served as co-counsel with MSF, representing over 150 plaintiffs, all of whom were sexual assault victims, against UCLA and former UCLA gynecological oncologist Dr. James Heaps. Ms. Garza again teamed with Mr. Cunny, who was employed at MSF. The Heaps/UCLA plaintiffs sought damages against UCLA and Heaps for decades of sexual abuse perpetrated on female patients during gynecological examinations at UCLA. Ms. Garza and Mr. Cunny were extensively involved in all aspects of this complex litigation, including determining litigation strategy, leading the discovery teams, taking multiple depositions, drafting and arguing significant motions, and preparing three preference cases for trial. Both also were significantly involved in all phases of the settlement.

Yi Youn Kim v. Choong Whan Park and University of Southern California, Case No. 21STCV14870 (LASC)

Substantial Confidential Settlement Amount (Confidentiality Demanded By Defendants (CCP 1001(e))

The Garza Firm was plaintiff’s counsel in this sexual and racial harassment and sexual abuse lawsuit brought by a former student employee against USC and its tenured Marshall Business School Professor, Choong Whan Park. The lawsuit alleged that Park sexually assaulted Ms. Kim on multiple occasions while she served as a USC student employee, reporting directly to Park. During the ensuing Title IX investigation, USC offered to drop the investigation in exchange for Professor Park “voluntarily” retiring from USC.

Matter Was Resolved Prelitigation (Without Need For Lawsuit)

Substantial (Prelitigation) Confidential Settlement Amount (Confidentiality Demanded By Defendants (CCP 1001(e))

The Garza Firm was plaintiff’s counsel in this sexual assault, sexual harassment case brought by a former Larry Nassar survivor against her employer. Plaintiff’s claims stemmed from the company’s founder sexually assaulting and harassing the plaintiff (including at outside the workplace events). The Garza Firm was able to resolve this case for significant compensation for the plaintiff without the necessity of filing a lawsuit in court, which significantly lowered the level of plaintiff’s retraumatization.

Jane AJ Doe v. Lyft, Inc., et. al., Case No. 30-2021-01238721-CU-PO-WJC (OCSC), Coordinated JCCP No. 5061

Substantial Settlement Amount (Sexual Assault Victim v. Lyft and Lyft’s Driver)

The Garza Firm was plaintiff’s counsel in this case of a Lyft driver’s (male) sexual assault of a Lyft passenger (female). The lawsuit alleged that the driver (a convicted felon) was improperly authorized by Lyft and allowed to drive on the Lyft platform which led to plaintiff’s sexual assault – after the plaintiff had requested a Lyft ride because she was intoxicated. Before filing the lawsuit, plaintiff (i) reported the sexual assault to police and (ii) to Lyft, but Lyft failed to acknowledge any fault and actively attempted to secrete the fact that the driver was a convicted felon allowed to drive on Lyft’s platform. The Garza Firm was able to, among other things, use GPS data to show that the driver drove plaintiff close to her destination, stopped and sexually assaulted plaintiff in the Lyft vehicle for over 20 minutes at the end of the ride but before the ride was officially “concluded.”

Other Representative Matters

  • Represented two plaintiffs against Southern California law firm in employment claims of sexual harassment and gender violence, obtaining multi-million dollar settlements.
  • Represented employee plaintiff in claims of sexual harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge, obtaining a confidential settlement.
  • Represented former general counsel of Fortune 500 company in his employment separation.
  • Represented minor employee plaintiff in claims of sexual harassment and sexual abuse against large international conglomerate, obtaining a settlement.
  • Represented plaintiff and prevailed in a jury trial in Orange County Superior Court in personal injury action.
  • Investigated claims of sexual harassment by multiple women against the Chief of Police of a local Southern California municipality.
  • Represented a high-profile individual, prevailing in the binding arbitration of an employment contract dispute.

Reported Decisions

Mr. Garza’s results for his clients are the subject of a number of reported decisions:

  • In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 10 F. 4th 147 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, (Feb. 22, 2022) L. Ed. 2d [] (U.S. February. [], 2022) (Determining that a corporation can act only through individuals; state law determines who has authority to act for the corporation—in this case, the board of directors— which delegated its authority to the special committee. Actual fraudulent intent can only be established through the intent of the individuals who have the authority to control the transfer (“control test”). In Tribune, the complaint failed to allege actual fraudulent intent adequately, and the court properly dismissed the complaint).
  • Holliday v. K Road Power Management, LLC (In re Boston Generating LLC), 617 B.R. 442 (Bankr. 2020), affirmed, Holliday, Liquidating Trustee of the BosGen Liq. Trust, 2021 WL 4150523 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2021) appeal filed, No. 21-2543 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2021) (holding that section 546(e) preempts intentional fraudulent transfer claims under state law and, following Tribune, section 546(e) protected pre-bankruptcy recapitalization payment made to LLC members because debtors were “financial institutions,” as customers of banks that acted as depositories and agents in connection with the recap).
  • In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2021) (“Tribune 2”) (Section 546(e) provides that notwithstanding sections 544 and 548, a trustee may not avoid, among other things, a transfer by or to a financial institution in connection with a securities contract, which the court determined applied to the share purchases. State laws are preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute, such as when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress’s objectives. In Tribune, the court dismissed the creditors’ constructive fraudulent transfer actions).
  • In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.v, 818 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Tribune 1”) (The Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy courts control all aspects of a bankruptcy case’s conduct; therefore, the presumption against implied preemption does not apply. Congress enacted section 546(e) to protect securities markets by bringing stability, certainty and finality to securities transactions. Permitting post-bankruptcy creditor state law fraudulent transfer actions prohibited to the trustee under section 546(e) would undermine that purpose. In Tribune, the court determined that section 546(e) prohibits post-bankruptcy creditor state law fraudulent transfer claims).
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Kipperman (In re Commercial Money Center), 392 B.R. 814 (9th Cir. BAP 2008) (Court confirms that creditor’s security interest in lease receivables was unperfected because perfection by possession requires actual possession and not through the debtor as agent).
  • NetBank, FSB v. Kipperman (In re Commercial Money Center, Inc.), 350 B.R. 465 (9th Cir. BAP 2006) (The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that “[w]hether a transaction is a sale or a loan is based on the intentions of the parties ‘as determined from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transactions at issue.’ . . . We interpret Golden Plan to mean that testimony should be admitted or excluded consistent with the ordinary rules regarding parol evidence.” Further the BAP determined that because the underlying transaction was a loan and not a true sale, a creditor’s interest in a payment intangible was not automatically perfected under U.C.C. § 9-309(3)).
  • In re Commercial Money Center, Inc., 2005 WL 1365055, 56 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 54 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2005) (Bankruptcy Court ruling that lease payment streams constitute “chattel paper” and therefore [defendant] NetBank was required to perfect its interests under the rules applicable to chattel paper. In the alternative, the bankruptcy court ruled that, even if the payment streams were not chattel paper, [defendant] NetBank cannot benefit from the automatic perfection rule applicable to sales of payment intangibles (Rev. UCC § 9-309(3)) because the transactions at issue were loans rather than sales).
  • In re VMS National Properties, 148 B.R. 942 (Bankr. C.D. Cal 1992) (Decision rendered prior to 2005 Code Amendments, ruling that, despite the language of 365(d)(4) of a self-executing “deemed rejection,” lease was still viable and landlord could waive the automatic rejection.).