ORANGE COUNTY
3 Hutton Centre Dr
Suite 900
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(714) 740 - 1600
FAX (714) 740 - 2482
SAN FRANCISCO
One Embarcadero Ctr
Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 315 - 1635
FAX (415) 315 - 1636
SAN DIEGO
5040 Shoreham Place
Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92122
(858) 546-1122
FAX (858) 546-1188
PHOENIX
2375 E. Camelback Rd
Suite 500
Phoenix, AZ 85016-3489
(602) 952 - 9140
FAX (602) 952 - 9141
LAS VEGAS
5450 W. Sahara Ave
Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89146
(702) 866 - 6606
FAX (702) 866 - 6626

Verdicts and Settlements - Arizona, California, Nevada

Representative cases

Campbell, Lauter & Murphy has developed expertise across a diverse set of practice areas. The firm's underlying emphasis is its ability to litigate complex matters in each specialty area, as well as successful appellate work following the jury process.

The firm focuses upon team building within certain practice areas - intellectual property, construction & real estate, catastrophic injury/product liability and business dispute matters.

Early evaluation and identification of unique legal strategies - designed to deliver the best possible, most cost-effective results - is the cornerstone to Campbell, Lauter & Murphy's approach to all matters.

Please click on the link for each practice specialty for a complete listing of the firm's expertise in each area.

Appellate Practice

BALDWIN BUILDERS v. COAST PLASTERING CORPORATION (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 1339

Ron Lauter represented Coast Plastering, and successfully won this appeal which established new law in California that where a contractual provision separately provides for the recovery of attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing the indemnity agreement, and those fees are not included as an item of loss or expense under the indemnity agreement, California Code Section 1717 applies and authorizes a prevailing indemnitor/subcontractor to recover attorneys' fees so incurred. The case also held that where the indemnitor/subcontractor is required to prove its lack of fault in defending against a claim under the indemnity, it is entitled to recover the fees incurred in doing so.

Smith v Ben Bennet Inc. et al. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1507, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 612

We represented CCRC and Ben Bennet Inc. The issue was whether the statute tolling the limitations period for action based on health care provider's “professional negligence” for 90 days after notice of claim was served on provider applied to a widow's action against skilled nursing facility, seeking enhanced remedies available under Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Also, whether an elder abuse claim under the Act involved reckless neglect, or intentional abuse by elder's custodian, and thus was simply not encompassed within “professional negligence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Riverside Superior Court’s order granting out motion for summary judgment and held that section 364 did not apply to elder abuse claims and other non-MICRA actions.

  • Appellate Practice
  • Automobile Dealers/Lemon Law
  • Business & Commercial Disputes/Litigation
  • Representation of Casinos/Gaming Interests in the State of Nevada
  • Construction Defect Litigation
  • Construction & Real Estate Contract Disputes
  • Employment Dispute/Litigation
  • Fire Litigation
  • Insurance Disputes/Bad Faith Litigation/Declaratory Relief Actions
  • Intellectual Property/Patent Infringement Claims
  • Intentional Torts
  • Mass Torts/Class Action Litigation
  • Mobile Home Parks
  • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death
  • Product Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Sports Law/Litigation
  • Trucking Accidents

Back to Top

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Site Map ] [ Bookmark Us ]