Case: Shorebird Homeowners Association vs. Shorebird Solar, Inc., et. al.
Retained by plaintiff through Glenn Youngling of Feingold & Youngling, a San Rafael law firm.
I prepared an opinion regarding the adequacy of the original developer budget and the standard of care of developer representatives on the Association's Board of Directors.
My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Lauriedale Homeowners Association vs. Woodmont Development
Company, et. al.
Retained by plaintiff through the law firm of Ann Rankin, a Oakland law firm.
Scope of work included preparing an opinion on the standard of care for the developer controlled Board of Directors, the original management company and the adequacy of the developer’s initial Association budget.
My deposition was taken twice. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Quiet Harbor Homeowners Association vs. Centex Real Estate Corp.
Retained by defendant through Nannette Souhrada of Campbell, Souhrada & Volk, a San Diego law firm.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer’s initial budget and reserve study and to opine on the Association and management company’s maintenance programs and practices.
My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Cote D' Azure Homeowners Association vs. Venture Corporation, et. al.
Retained by plaintiff through Jim Lucier of the Anolik Law Offices of San Francisco.
U.S. District Court, Northern California.
I prepared an opinion regarding the adequacy of the original developer budget.
My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Solar Park Condominium Homeowners Association vs. Grumley, et. al.
Retained by plaintiff through William A. Gillis of the law office of William A. Gillis, a Santa Rosa law firm.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer's initial Operating Budget and Reserve Analysis.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Refugio Valley Maintenance Association vs. Standard Pacific of Northern California, et al.
Retained by plaintiff, through Edward Nemetz, Esq., of the Law Offices of Ann Rankin, an Oakland firm.
My scope of work is to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer's initial operating budget and reserve analysis, with particular emphasis on landscape costs.
My deposition was taken once. The case has settled.
Case: Monterossa at Tiburan HOA vs. Southwest Diversified/Coscan Partners
Retained by plaintiff through Glenn Youngling of Feingold & Youngling, a San Rafael law firm.
Marin County Superior Court.
My scope of work is to opine upon the adequacy of the projects original reserve study.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Morgan Heights HOA vs. Bridge Housing, et al.
Retained by plaintiff through Andrew Wiener of Haas & Najarian, a San Francisco law firm
Superior Court, County of San Francisco.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the Developer's initial Operating Budget and Reserve Analysis and whether or not the first management company performed their duties within the standard of care.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: MacArthur Heights v. Transaction
Retained by plaintiff through Larry Russell of Russell & Mallett, a Walnut Creek law firm.
Superior Court, County of Alameda.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer’s initial budget and reserve study and on certain developer disclosure requirements.
My deposition taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Park Place Homeowners Association vs. Young America Homes, Inc.
Retained by defendant through Jeffrey Nevin of Nevin & Hall, an Oakland law firm.
My scope of work is to opine upon the adequacy of the defendant developer's initial Association Operating Budget and Reserve Analysis.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Meadow Oaks HOA vs. Barratt, et al.
Retained by defendant through Matt Levy of Martin, Ryan & Andrada, an Oakland law firm.
My scope of work is to opine upon the adequacy of the defendant developer's initial Operating Budget and Reserve Analysis.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Victorian Village vs. Coast Savings, et al.
Retained by defendant through R. Dewey Wheeler of McNamara, Houston, Dodge, McClure and Ney, a Walnut Creek law firm.
My scope of work is to opine upon the adequacy of the defendants developer's initial Operating Budget and Reserve Analysis.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: The Oaks of Del Rey vs. Del Rey Oaks Associates.
Retained by defendant, through Jeffrey Nevin of Nevin & Hall, an Oakland law firm, and David S. Henningsen of Robinson & Wood, a San Jose law firm.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the standard of care for the developer controlled Board of Directors and the adequacy of the developers initial Association budgets.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Chandon vs. Taylor Woodrow
Retained by defendant, through Jonathan Terry of Songstad, Randall & Ulich, an Irvine law firm.
My scope of work is to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer's initial Reserve Analysis and an opinion about the actions of developer representatives on the Association's Board of Directors.
My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Cupertino Creekside HOA vs. Saratoga Garden Associates
Retained by defendant through William Taylor of Allman & Nielson, a San Francisco law firm.
Santa Clara County Superior Court.
My scope of work is to opine upon the adequacy of the projects original budget and reserve study.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Spring Court HOA vs. J. Drim, Inc. et al.
Retained by defendant through David Miller of the law firm of Nevin & Gruen, an Oakland law firm. Alameda County Superior Court.
My scope of work is to opine upon the adequacy of the projects original reserve study.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Bay Pointe at Refugio Valley Ranch HOA vs. Shea Homes, et al.
Retained by defendant through Peter Geckeler of Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft, a San Francisco law firm.
Superior Court, County of Contra Costa.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer’s initial budget and reserve study and to opine on the Association and management company maintenance programs and practices.
My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Bay Pointe at Ardenwood Homeowners Association vs. Shea Homes et al.
Retained by defendant through Bennett Chin of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, a San Francisco law firm
My scope of work is to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer’s initial budget and reserve study and to opine on the Association and management company’s maintenance programs and practices.
The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Wildwood at Five Canyons vs. Centex
Retained by defendant through Karl Torke of Morgenstein & Jubelirer, a San Francisco law firm. Superior Court, County of Alameda.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer’s initial budget and reserve study.
My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.
Case: Clearpointe Duet Owners Association v. Centex Homes, et al.
Retained by defendant through Karl Torke of Morgenstein & Jubelirer, a San Francisco law firm
Superior Court, County of Solano
My scope of work is to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the developer’s initial budget and reserve study and the Association’s maintenance programs.
Case settled prior to trial.
Case: Hillside Gardens Homeowners Association v. BMRA Vallejo, LTD, County of Solano
Retained by defendant through L. Jay Pedersen of Bledsoe, Cathcart, Diestel & Pedersen, a San Francisco law firm.
My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the standard of care for a developer controlled Board of Directors, the adequacy of the developer’s initial Association budgets and the Association’s maintenance programs.
