Patrick J. D’Arcy, an Irvine, CA attorney, and his firm, Patrick J. D’Arcy, a Professional Law Corporation, obtained yet another impressive victory in a real estate lawsuit, where Mr. D’Arcy defended against a $450,000 damage claim. The clients were by two former officers, including its past CEO, and their corporation – various Burger King franchises (REX Investment Company v. SME et al.), Case No. 15-cv-02607-H-JMA. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract over the lease (and other claims). The case is now a published federal opinion, making it binding authority in the Ninth Circuit. Mr. D’Arcy not only got full dismissals of the individuals at the pleading stage, but did the same for the corporation on all but two claims against it. Then, when the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, Mr. D’Arcy used a rare procedure – a Rule 56 opposition that seeks to defeat the MSJ, as well as to dismiss the case. Judge Marilyn Huff agreed with Mr. D’Arcy’s arguments and case law, and threw the case out. No trial, no damages paid.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160830966
Mr. D’Arcy refused all settlement offers, and filed a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to dismiss the case. Judge Marilyn Huff, in a 20 page opinion, agreed with Mr. D’Arcy’s arguments, and dismissed both former officers from the case, and eliminated four of the six claims against the lone corporate defendant claimed to be the lessee.
As for the two remaining claims, one is the alternate of the other, meaning only one claim remained after Mr. D’Arcy’s pleading challenges.
Mr. D’Arcy then opposed the landlord’s motion for summary judgment and not only defeated a motion with over 500 pages worth of exhibits, but had the Court dismiss the case against the plaintiff through an expertly written opposition!
The Court’s ruling was published and is now binding authority in the Ninth Circuit, and concerns California law dealing with tenant assignments of commercial leases. The filings by the firm meticulously researched California law dating back to 1889, and stopped a damage claim for $450,000 in its tracks. Had the Court not ruled as it did, the client would have been liable for the other side’s attorney’s fees too, making the total damage claim worth about $1 million.
