top of page

Expert Witness Services

AVAILABLE IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA & ARIZONA

Bicksler and Associates has provided expert witness services in a mulitude of cases, including those concerning condominiums, townhomes, common interest subdivisions, expert testimony on budgets, reserves, management and standards of care.

CASE CATEGORY:
DEVELOPER – BUDGETS & RESERVES – STANDARD OF CARE
  • Retained by defendant through Ryan Manning of Newmeyer & Dillion a Newport Beach law firm. Case titled The Courtyards at Dublin Ranch Villages HOA v Toll-Dublin LLC, County of Contra Costa. My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors. My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Wakako Uritani of Lober, Greenfield & Polito a San Francisco law firm. Case titled Warm Springs OA v. KB HOME South Bay Inc, County of Alameda. My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by plaintiff through Glenn Youngling of Feingold & Youngling, a San Rafael law firm.  Case entitled Shorebird Homeowners Association vs. Shorebird Solar, Inc., et. al.  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.

  • Retained by plaintiff through the law firm of Ann Rankin, an Oakland law firm.  Case entitled Lauriedale Homeowners Association vs. Woodmont Development Company, et. al.  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.

  • Retained by plaintiff through Jim Lucier of the Anolik Law Offices of San Francisco. Case entitled Cote D' Azure Homeowners Association vs. Venture Corporation, et. al.  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.

  • Retained by plaintiff through William A. Gillis of the law office of William A. Gillis, a Santa Rosa law firm.  Case entitled Solar Park Condominium Homeowners Association vs. Grumley, et. al. 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.

  • Retained by plaintiff, through Edward Nemetz, Esq., of the Law Offices of Ann Rankin, an Oakland firm.  Case entitled Refugio Valley Maintenance Association vs. Standard Pacific of Northern California, et al.  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.

  • Retained by plaintiff through Glenn Youngling of Feingold & Youngling, a San Rafael law firm.  Case entitled Monterossa at Tiburon HOA vs. Southwest Diversified/Coscan Partners.  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.

  • Retained by plaintiff through Andrew Wiener of Haas & Najarian, a San Francisco law firm.  Case entitled Morgan Heights HOA vs. Bridge Housing, et al. 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.

  • Retained by plaintiff through Larry Russell of Russell & Mallett, a Walnut Creek law firm. Case entitled MacArthur Heights v. Transaction. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through Jeffrey Nevin of Nevin & Hall, an Oakland law firm. Case entitled Park Place Homeowners Association vs. Young America Homes, Inc. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through Matt Levy of Martin, Ryan & Andrada, an Oakland law firm.  Case entitled Meadow Oaks HOA vs. Barratt, et al. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through R. Dewey Wheeler of McNamara, Houston, Dodge, McClure and Ney, a Walnut Creek law firm.  Case entitled Victorian Village vs. Coast Savings, et al.  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.

  • 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.  Case entitled The Oaks of Del Rey vs. Del Rey Oaks Associates.  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.

  • Retained by defendant, through Jonathan Terry of Songstad, Randall & Ulich, an Irvine law firm.  Case entitled Chandon vs. Taylor Woodrow.  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.

  • Retained by defendant through William Taylor of Allman & Nielson, a San Francisco law firm.  Case entitled Cupertino Creekside HOA vs. Saratoga Garden Associates. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through David Miller of the law firm of Nevin & Gruen, an Oakland law firm.  Case entitled Spring Court HOA vs. J. Drim, Inc. et al. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through Peter Geckeler of Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft, a San Francisco law firm.  Case entitled Bay Pointe at Refugio Valley Ranch HOA vs. Shea Homes, et al.  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.

  • Retained by defendant through Nannette Souhrada of Campbell, Souhrada & Volk, a San Diego law firm.  Case entitled Quiet Harbor Homeowners Association vs. Centex Real Estate Corp.  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.

  • Retained by defendant through Bennett Chin of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, a San Francisco law firm.  Case entitled Bay Pointe at Ardenwood Homeowners Association vs. Shea Homes et al.  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.

  • Retained by defendant through Karl Torke of Morgenstein & Jubelirer, a San Francisco law firm.  Case entitled Wildwood at Five Canyons vs. Centex. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through Karl Torke of Morgenstein & Jubelirer, a San Francisco law firm. Case entitled Clearpointe Duet Owners Association v. Centex Homes, et al. 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.

  • Retained by defendant through L. Jay Pedersen of Bledsoe, Cathcart, Diestel & Pedersen, a San Francisco law firm. Case entitled Hillside Gardens Homeowners Association v. BMRA Vallejo, LTD, County of Solano. 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. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Andrew Fiorica of Eppsteiner & Fiorica, LLP, a San Diego law firm. Case entitled Oxford Gardens Fremont v. CP Oxford Gardens LLC, et al., County of Alameda. My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors. My deposition was taken twice. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Andrew Fiorica of Eppsteiner & Fiorica, LLP, a San Diego law firm. Case entitled Clarendon Hills Owners Association v Clarendon Hills Investors, et al, County of Alameda. My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through David J. Byassee of Ulich & Terry, LLP, a Newport Beach law firm. Case entitled Vantage Town Home Association v. Taylor Woodrow Homes, County of Orange. My scope of work is to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors. My deposition has been taken once. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Christopher T. Wright of Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge a San Diego law firm. Case entitled 4S Ranch Master HOA v 4S Kelwood, et al, County of San Diego. My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Reserve Study prepared by the project developer. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Ryan Manning of Newmeyer & Dillion a Newport Beach law firm. Case titled The Terraces at Dublin Ranch Villages HOA v Toll-Dublin LLC, County of Contra Costa. My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors.My deposition was taken once. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Leslie Hanks of Sellar Hazard & Lucia a Walnut Creek law firm. Case titled The Candlestick Point – the Cove Homeowners Association v. Top Vision, County of San Francisco.My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors.The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Bahaar Cadambi of Newmeyer & Dillion a Newport Beach law firm. Case titled Rosedale Promenade Community Association v. William Lyon Homes, Rosedale Land Partners, Rosedale Investment, County of Los Angeles.My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors.The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Patrick Taylor of Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino, a Concord law firm. Case entitled 73 Sumner HOA v. 73 Sumner LLC, et al, County of San Francisco. My scope of work is to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors. The case settled prior to trial.

  • Retained by defendant through Wakako Uritani of Lober, Greenfield & Polito a San Francisco law firm. Case titled Monte Vista Condominium Association vs. Cannery Square LLC and KB HOME, County of Santa Clara.My scope of work was to prepare an opinion on the adequacy of the original Operating Budget and Reserve Study and on the actions of developer representatives on the Board of Directors.The case settled prior to trial.

bottom of page