1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone:            (310) 201-0010
Case Manager: Christie Woo
Email: christie@adrservices.com

 Hon. MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT (Ret.) 

Representative Cases 

BUSINESS TORTS / BREACH OF CONTRACT 

  • Case involved the breach of an exclusive distribution agreement for the sale of cosmetics in the People’s Republic of China.  Plaintiff alleged that a distributor who was not party to the agreement intentionally interfered with the contract and caused the distributors who were obligated under contract to breach so that the non-party could become the distributor.  Plaintiff alleged this inducement of breach caused a disruption in business and provable damages.
  • Business dispute between the owners of cryptocurrency mining devices and the venue hosting the miners and providing the electricity.  Allegations of breach of contract and fraud in the inducement; damage claim included lost profits.
  • Mediated dispute regarding money owed for services between an importer and the company that picks up and stores the importer’s cargo.
  • Handled a case regarding a breach of service contract between a company that provides a platform for advertisers on Facebook and a former client advertiser. The company alleged that the advertiser failed to pay legitimate invoices, and the advertiser made counter-claims regarding the legitimacy of those invoices, and the loss of revenue that occurred when the company removed its advertising from social media.
  • A business development company sued a 501(c)(3) religious organization and the gurus who ran the organization for breach of contract for failure to pay its fees and other business torts.
  • A corporation owning a supermarket chain claimed a vendor breached its contract by delivering seafood that was non-merchantable. It therefore refused to pay for the product that was delivered. Vendor claimed that the product was edible and within the guidelines set forth by the supermarket chain for the product, and that the supermarket chain should pay for the product delivered as provided in the contract.
  • Plaintiff brought a fraudulent transfer action against a debtor and his relatives who transferred real property to a relative for no consideration within days of a pending trial in the underlying fraud case.
  • A pre-litigation dispute in which a transportation company alleged that the company who sold the product and with whom it had an exclusive contract violated the contract by transporting some of the product itself, a material breach.
  • Dispute between members of a Masonic Lodge and a non-profit benefit corporation alleging trespass for entering the Lodge and taking funds and items that belonged to the corporation and breaching their fiduciary duty to the corporation.
  • An expert witness claimed a litigant with whom he contracted to provide services failed to pay the majority of the billed expert fees. The litigant claimed the fees were unreasonable.
  • A horse trainer alleged the Defendant horse owner failed to repay fees for training and rent, while the horse owner claimed she offset what she owed the horse trainer for repayment of a personal loan. The two parties formerly were close friends; the horse trainer disputed the loan and claimed it was a gift.
  • Dispute regarding money owed for services between importer and company that picks up and stores cargo.
  • Dispute over a contract between a video company and a movie studio to make the studio’s movies available for its customers via authorized networks at U.S. airports. In this action brought by the studio for failure of the video company to make its second payment to plaintiff studio, the video company alleged frustration of purpose because the agreement contemplated that the video company would enter into a joint venture with a wireless network to provide movie streaming at airports, but no authorized networks would enter into an agreement with the video company.
  • Action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion. Plaintiff companies wanted to sell electronic products to Wal-Mart but were not “approved vendors”. Defendant company, an “approved vendor”, agreed to be the middleman. The agreement was for plaintiffs to ship goods from China to defendant company, who would in turn ship them to Wal-Mart. Defendant’s principal also promised to use his best efforts to obtain “approved vendor” status for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that within months, defendant company and its principal forwarded only a portion of the Wal-Mart payments to Plaintiffs, keeping millions of dollars belonging to Plaintiffs. Further, Defendant principal made no effort to obtain approved “vendor status” for Plaintiff companies. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for breach of a joint venture agreement, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of express oral and implied contractual indemnity.
  • Action for breach of contract, false promise, unfair business practice and quantum meruit seeking recovery by a law firm of fees it alleged it earned in connection with plaintiff’s representation in multiple lawsuits of defendant surgery centers and individual with ownership interests in the surgery centers. The gravamen of the suit was whether individual defendants should be held liable for the obligations of the surgery centers based upon a theory of alter ego liability.
  • Action for breach of contract and for recovery of reasonable fees in quantum meruit brought by an attorney against his former client. The client signed a written retainer agreement to have the attorney represent him in an arbitration before FINRA against  a stock brokerage for breach of fiduciary duties related to investment advice and its trading practices regarding the client’s positions in certain stocks and securities. Plaintiff alleged that the client refused to cooperate in his representation, refused to pay the expert costs, and following the Award, contacted the brokerage’s counsel to demand that they send the Award directly to the client in an attempt to circumvent his counsel and to prevent the attorney from receiving what he was due under the contingency fee agreement. 
  • Breach of contract in the purchase of domain names.
  • Action for breach of written contract brought by the assignee of a closing car dealership against defendant car broker alleging failure to pay for forty-three used cars.
  • Dispute between Plaintiff concrete company and the project manager regarding who should bear responsibility for payment of concrete materials delivered to a school district construction site after concrete manager served a stop notice on the school district and claimed some of the lien releases were forged by the contractor who abandoned the project.
  • Action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title and fraudulent transfer in connection with a partnership agreement in which each partner accused the other of confiscating business inventory, conversion of partnership assets and retaining partnership income.
  • Action for misappropriation of trade secrets in which plaintiff graphic design and marketing company alleged that after it terminated defendant’s employment as a graphic designer, defendant was hired by one of plaintiff’s clients to maintain the website he had created for them and that while working in the new position, defendant published images he created while working for plaintiff, which he stole from plaintiff, and over which plaintiff had a proprietary interest.
  • Action by an insurance provider whose agents sell life insurance policies and annuities against an independent agent alleging that the agent sent by email unsolicited deceptive advertisements. When the insurance provider terminated the agent, he sued the provider and hired a public relations firm to send emails to people working in the insurance industry about his lawsuits and the injustices he claimed to  have suffered. Plaintiff alleged the header information or subject line on the emails contained false and misleading information.
  • Action for breach of contract and common counts against a defunct corporation and its principal on an alter ego theory and cross complaint for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation and unfair business practices where the parties entered into a series of transactions for the purchase of fabrics and garments that defendants refused to pay for, claiming some were not delivered and others were defective.
  • Action for breach of subcontracts for maintenance, repair and facility modification of statewide buildings in which the defendants asserted as a defense that the plaintiffs were required to have a valid contractor’s license to perform the majority of the work and since they did not, that plaintiffs were not entitled to be paid for the work.
  • Action followed the foreclosure of a partially completed condominium construction project after default on a construction loan. One dispute was over the right to the settlement proceeds as between the purchaser of the condominium project at a nonjudicial foreclosure and the original investors following the settlement of a lenderliability lawsuit between the bank that issued the real estate loan and the condominium developer whose condominium project went into foreclosure allegedly due to misdeeds by the bank. Another dispute was whether there was an oral agreement between the condominium developer and the purchaser of the project not to interfere with the foreclosure or challenge title to the property.
  • Action for damages for breach of contract and fraud against several limited liability companies, corporations and an individual on an alter ego /single enterprise theory brought by a developer of a makeup line who sold her interest in her limited liability company to a corporation which defaulted in its payments.
  • Action brought by a producer against his financial manager and an attorney for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, legal malpractice and declaratory relief contesting their right to profits made by defendants in connection with real estate investments made by limited liability companies in which they were both managers and investors. The primary dispute concerned the legal interpretation of the terms of distribution of proceeds upon sale of an asset or dissolution, as set forth in the written operating agreements.
  • Action brought by a legal fees auditor for payment of disputed fees billed for conducting a review and analysis of legal fees and expenses invoiced by law firms in a major litigation with the defendant company.
  • Action brought by a manager of recording artists against a photographer for breach of a contract to provide photographs from a celebrity shoot in exchange for publicity and promotion on social media.
  • Consumer class action against a motorcycle dealership asserting illegal business practices and seeking restitution and injunctive relief for motorcycle customers to whom the dealership allegedly sold motorcycles not displaying the hanger tag containing the MSRP, the amounts charged for transportation and assembly, the amounts charged for accessories and the retail price, as required by the Vehicle Code.
  • Action by an investor for breach of promissory note, money lent and money had and received against corporate entities and an individual as an alter ego in connection with a failed real estate project.
  • Dispute between general partners in a real estate limited partnership established to purchase, complete and operate a large, unfinished apartment complex following the death of one of the partners. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and financial elder abuse in the manner defendant distributed the proceeds upon sale of the property, in violation of their written agreement.
  • Plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract (settlement agreement) and negligent infliction of emotional distress following the settlement of a dispute with a funeral home that determined they cremated and held a funeral over the remains of the wrong decedent.
  • Action for breach of contract and for violation of duties as a real estate broker and real estate consultant under the Civil Code, brought by Plaintiffs against foreclosure consultants who advertised on the radio that they could get clients a loan modification from their lenders. After paying a non-refundable fee up front for their foreclosure consulting services, they told Plaintiffs to default on their loan so that the lender would negotiate, but Plaintiff alleges they then did nothing to assist in obtaining a modification, resulting in foreclosure of their home.
  • Actions under the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair the vehicles to match the written warranty in a reasonable number of attempts or to promptly replace or​ repurchase the vehicles.