In the news

William Hablinski and Richard Manion, Architects whose firms’ design and supervise the construction of high-end homes in desirable neighborhoods, with the guidance and dedication of FBBC, finally achieves another judgment in the landmark Architectural Copyright Act litigation, this one against the former employee who stole their firms’ home designs.

Hablinski’s and Manion’s firms have designed many of the large-scale custom homes that line mountainous Mulholland Drive corridor and exclusive streets in Beverly Hills, Bel-Air and Pacific Palisades (especially in the Platinum Quadrangle). The firms’ commissions include the Mayfair condominium in New York City, Villas Del Mar Condominium in Pasadena, California and residences for Oak Creek Canyon Ranch in Montecito, California, as well as designs for such notable clients as Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, Arnold Scwarzeneggar and Maria Shriver, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Jim Carrey, and Vanna White.

With the average custom designed residence at 20,000 square feet, celebrities, business moguls and the social elite turn to Hablinski and Manion to create elegant residences that rival the finest chateaus in France and villas in Italy.

After designing a custom home worth millions of dollars for Los Angeles real estate mogul, Fred Sands, Hablinski’s and Manion’s employees discovered a shockingly similar home seven miles to the west. Hablinski and Manion had invested more than 3,800 hours creating the Sands home and it was painful for them to see a copycat home just down the road, with the authorship of the plans being ascribed to their employee, Mehran Shahverdi. “I use original compositions and very distinct elements that are my signature to create one-of-a-kind homes,” Hablinski said.

Hablinski and Manion had kept a design library that had taken more than 15 years to develop. They alleged that one of their employees had stolen a number of these original designs, in addition to the Sands design, from this library.

The case against their disloyal employee, Shahverdi, was eventually transferred to private arbitration, but a separate Federal case against his co-conspirators went to trial first. With the help of FBBC, Hablinski and Manion in 2005 first obtained, what at the time was the country’s largest and only verdict against a third party contractor/homeowner who had conspired with the employee to infringe a single family residential Architectural Work–$5,900,000. Now, just recently, in 2010, FBBC also obtained an Award from the Arbitrator, confirmed as a Judgment, against Shahverdi for an additional $950,000.

Author: GK Communications: Amy Goldsmith (310) 440-0646

CELEBRITY ARCHITECT AWARDED 5.9 MILLION FOR COPIED PLANS “Copycat” Verdict Tests 1990 Federal Architectural Copyright Act; Becomes Country’s Largest and Only Verdict Against a Third Party Contractor/Homeowner

LOS ANGELES–13 April, 05- In a verdict that will further protect the work of architects and lead to liability for contractors and homeowners responsible for unauthorized use of architectural plans, a jury awarded Los Angeles-based William Hablinski Architecture (currently DBA Hablinski+Manion Architecture) a 5.9 million verdict after its plans for a multimillion dollar home were copied and used to build a structure replicating the original.

Following a three week trial, a six-member jury deliberated for a day-and-a-half before determining that two firms, Amir Construction, Inc., and EuroConcepts, Inc., — and the four Elihu brothers who own the companies — conspired with Mehran Shahverdi, a former Hablinski+Manion employee, to copy plans for a million Bel-Air, California mansion. The copied plans were use to build a million Beverly Hills home.

“Mr. Hablinski took a legal stand in favor of all architects and artisans who have a right to protect their work and inspiration,” said Peter J. Bezek, the attorney representing Hablinski+Manion. “This was difficult and expensive litigation for a man who believed in the integrity of artistic work and he was not dissuaded by those who warned him that he could not win and the costs could bankrupt his firm. I am very proud of his integrity and dedication.”

“This is a significant verdict because it confirms the broad scope of copyright protection available to architects and other artists,” said Roger N. Behle, Jr., co-counsel for Hablinski+Manion. “Third parties, such as contractors and homeowners, can be held liable for the infringing activities of those they hire. As a result, homeowners must be very careful when they hire someone to design plans. It is up to the homeowner to know who they are dealing with.”According to comments made in court and to the media when the suit was filed, the Elihu brothers claimed they had no idea the plans were copied.

After designing a custom home worth millions of dollars for Los Angeles real estate mogul Fred Sands, Hablinski and his employees discovered a shockingly similar home seven miles to the west. The designer of the “Copycat House” was a former draftsman at Hablinksi + Manion Architecture. The owner of the “copycat” house is the president of EuroConcepts, the firm that provided the plumbing and bath fixtures for the original Fred Sands design.

The federal suit filed in September of 2003 alleged copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, conspiracy and other claims. The suit tested and solidified the bounds of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. Previously, architects could only copyright their architectural plans, but this law extends the protection to building designs as well.

“I use original compositions and very distinct elements that are my signature to create one-of-a-kind homes,” said William Hablinksi. “I spent more than 3,800 hours creating the Sands home and it was painful for me, my employees and our client to see a copycat down the road.”

Hablinksi encourages other architects to register copyrights on all their work and pursue damages if a copyright is infringed.

Hablinski+Manion is still seeking damages from Mehran Shahverdiin a state court arbitration proceeding. This matter is still pending.

Hablinski + Manion is best known for its respect of traditional forms and historic imagery. The award-winning firm has designed many of the large-scale custom homes that line the mountainous Mulholland Drive corridor and exclusive streets in Beverly Hills, Bel-Air and Pacific Palisades. The Firm’s commissions include the Mayfair Condominium in New York City, Villas Del Mar Condominium in Pasadena, Calif. and residences for Oak Creek Canyon Ranch in Montecito, Calif., as well as designs for such notable clients as Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Jim Carrey, and Vanna White.

With the average custom designed residence at 20,000 square feet, celebrities, business moguls and the social elite turn to Hablinski + Manion Architecture to create elegant residences that rival the finest chateaus in France and villas in Italy.

About Hablinski + Manion Architecture
Founded in 1978, Hablinski + Manion Architecture is considered one of the Country’s foremost large-scale architects. William Hablinski and Richard Manion’s designs are internationally renowned for their respect to traditional forms and historic imagery. The architecture carefully integrates unique design elements into outwardly graceful environments that provide the Firm’s signature of simple elegance. With more than 24 employees, Hablinski + Manion Architecture has offices in Beverly Hills and Austin, Texas. For more information, please visit: www.hablinski-manion.com

by Santa Barabara Independent

This news article can be downloaded/viewed as a PDF file by clicking here.

F&F v. East West Bank

F&F v. East West Bank. FBBC’s clients, family-owned businesses, file Lender Liability lawsuit against East West Bank. FBBC’s clients have filed a lawsuit in California State Court against lender East West Bank, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligence, among other causes of action. The lawsuit is being brought by the borrower and two other businesses and alleges that the lender failed to properly fund-control a $40,000,000 commercial development project in Southern California and tricked the borrower into default so as to eliminate the otherwise performing loan from its portfolio by way of sale to another of its customers. The case is in its initial stages, but the Firm intends to act effectively and decisively to enable its clients to recover for all provable wrongful conduct. This case is being handled by partners Justin P. Karczag and Robert A. Curtis.

Superior Court Judge Affirms $14.8 Million Dollar Arbitration Award

On January 13, 2003, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge J. William McLafferty, affirmed an arbitration award issued by retired Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, David Eagleson which awarded Gregory J. Parker 14.8 million dollars in damages, punitive damages, and interest against Wendy P. McCaw, the owner and CEO of the Santa Barbara News-Press.

In documents filed with the court, McCaw’s attorneys had argued that the 14.8 million award should be vacated on the grounds that Justice Eagleson was biased against McCaw and her entities. Judge McLafferty, however, was not swayed by McCaw argument and denied McCaw’s petition to vacate.

Two Classes Certified in Class Action Against GTE/Verizon

Foley & Bezek, a Santa Barbara law firm with a practice specializing in class actions, along with the firm of Arias, Ozzello & Gignac, won a victory for consumers by certifying two classes in a class action against GTE/Verizon. Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle certified the Wrong PIC Code Class and Billing Date Error Class on May 29, 2002 after 3 days of hearings. Judge Anderle found that the Plaintiffs’ claims against GTE/Verizon for wrongful billing resulting in overcharges for consumers should proceed as a class action and appointed Foley & Bezek as one of the class counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed suit in August of 2000, alleging that flaws in GTE/Verizon’s billing system resulted in consumers getting billed for long distance calls by a carrier other than the carrier which they had chosen. This resulted in substantial overcharges to the consumers. Plaintiffs also determined that a consumer who changed his/her long distance carrier from AT&T to some other carrier any time during the billing cycle would also get charged higher rates. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks damages for negligence, fraud, conversion, unfair business practices and violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act on behalf of consumers in both classes.

Class Action Certified in Structured Settlement Case

Santa Barbara, CA – Foley & Bezek, a Southern California law firm with a practice specializing in class actions, confirms that a California State Court has certified a class action in the In Re: Structured Settlement Litigation, Case No. BC249692, in Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judge Peter Lichtman certified the class on January 29, 2002. Judge Licthman found that the Plaintiffs’ claims against numerous defendants for alleged failure to make timely payments to individuals who settled personal injury cases and agreed to accept periodic payments utilizing “structured settlements,” should proceed as a class action and appointed Foley & Bezek as one of the class counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed suit in January 2001 alleging that they have relied upon the integrity of Treasury Bond Trusts established by IBAR, Merrill Lynch and Merrrill Lynch Settlement Services Inc., under trust agreements with Bank of America and Wells Fargo, to secure over 0 million in outstanding settlement obligations. The complaint further alleges that in November, 2000, the current structured settlement company, SSTAI, defaulted on those payments. The complaint alleges that this default has had an enormous impact on the Plaintiffs, who represent an acutely vulnerable class of persons, many of whom are dependant on these settlement payments for medical care and the daily necessities of life.

In certifying this action as a class action, Judge Licthman defined the class of persons as all persons and entities who are parties to structured settlements with a company variously known as IBAR, Inc., Merrill Lynch IBAR, Inc., Merrill Lynch Settlement Services, Inc., ML Settlement Services, Inc., or Settlement Services Treasury Assignments, Inc., whose structured settlements provided for payments to be paid out of the interest and principal paid on U.S. Treasury bonds held in trust and who have not received payment in full of the amounts due to them under their structured settlements.

A settlement reached in a class action lawsuit brought by Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP against Verizon Directories (aka Idearc Media) was approved by the Superior Court on February 4, 2008. The settlement resolves a lawsuit alleging that Plaintiff and other members of the class purchased and paid for one year of advertising in the Verizon Yellow Pages print directory for Palm Springs, Indio, and the Coachella Valley. But, because Verizon did not timely distribute the directories to the public, he and other advertisers in the directories did not received the full year of advertising they had paid for.

While Verizon denied any liability, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were isolated incidents, under the terms of the settlement, class members will be entitled to cash payments or coupons towards future advertisements. Through aggressive litigation, FBB&C was able to achieve a very beneficial settlement for the class valued at approximately $1,578,474.00.

A settlement has been reached in a class action that alleged that T-Mobile engaged in the unfair, deceptive and misleading business practice of overcharging its cellular telephone customers for calls dialed to/from their cellular telephones while their customers (and their cellular telephones) were outside the United States.  The settlement, which was approved by both the San Diego Superior Court in December 2006, requires the Defendant to pay benefits to the class members valued at approximately $4,448,000 as set forth in more detail below.

CASE NAME: Behar International Counsel v. T-Mobile USA

TYPE OF CASE: Class Action

JUDGE: The Honorable Jay Bloom – San Diego Superior Court

PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED BY:  Robert A. Curtis of FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP; J. Paul Gignac of ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP;  R. Craig Clark of CLARK & ASSOCIATES

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED BY: Christopher Hockett and Thomas Hixson of BINGHAM McCUTCHEN

FACTS:  Before March 2003, Plaintiff entered into a standard Service Agreement for cellular telephone service from defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”).  In or around March 2003, Plaintiff noticed that its T-Mobile telephone bill contained two roaming charges of $4.99 each for numerous one minute telephone calls allegedly placed to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone while Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were outside of the United States – calls which Plaintiff never made or received.  As alleged in the complaint in this action, Plaintiff contacted T-Mobile several times regarding this matter but never received any explanation or a cash refund for the $4.99 charges.
As a result, Plaintiff sought the help of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP and Arias Ozzello & Gignac, LLP, who together with the help of San Diego counsel R. Craig Clark, filed a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile in the San Diego Superior Court alleging, inter alia, that T-Mobile engaged in the unfair, deceptive and misleading business practice of billing its cellular telephone customers for calls dialed to/from their cellular telephones while their customers (and their cellular telephones) were outside the United States, even though their customers never received/made the calls for which they were billed.  The class action complaint sought damages for Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment and Declaratory Relief.
T-Mobile immediately moved to strike Plaintiff’s class action on the grounds that the contract that Plaintiff had entered into contained a clause that prohibited class actions and also sought to move the case to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the contract.  Judge Bloom of the San Diego Superior Court denied T-Mobile’s motion to strike the class action allegations on the grounds that such waivers are unconscionable under California Law but ordered the matter to class arbitration in front of the American Arbitration Association.  Robert Brent of the American Arbitration Association was appointed the arbitrator.
After completing discovery and surviving a motion to dismiss in the class arbitration, T-Mobile approached Plaintiff with the possibility of mediation.  After several exchanges of data and meetings of experts to assist in determining the class size and potential damages, the parties mediated their dispute before the Honorable Robert Altman (Ret.) of ADR Services, Los Angeles.

RESULT:  The settlement reached on behalf of the entire class, which was approved by both the San Diego Superior Court and the Arbitrator pursuant to the AAA’s class action rules in December 2006, required the Defendant to pay benefits to the class members valued at approximately $4,448,000.  The reaction of the members of this class to this settlement was extremely positive as only 57 of the more than 248,000 class members opted-out of the settlement and not a single class member objected to the settlement at the final approval hearing.

Appellate Court Issues an Important Decision on SLAPP Litigation

On July 22, 2004, the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six issued an important decision regarding the protections afforded defendants under the State’s Anti-SLAPP laws.

Santa Barbara Beach Properties, L.P. managed by and through developer Bill Levy initially filed a lawsuit against Santa Barbara resident Richard Berti and his wife, alleging that Berti had breached his fiduciary duties with the intent to harm Levy’s business. After Levy filed suit, Berti, represented by Foley & Bezek, LLP, approached the Court for permission to file a brief known as a “SLAPP Motion to Strike.” The SLAPP statute (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) is designed to prohibit lawsuits initiated to quell a person’s freedom of speech or access to the courts by the fear of high litigation costs. Shortly after Berti’s request, Levy voluntarily dismissed his case.

Later, when Berti filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the SLAPP statute, Levy’s counsel argued that, because the alleged SLAPP suit was dropped before Berti filed his SLAPP Motion to Strike, the Court did not have jurisdiction to award Berti fees. In a published decision (found by clicking on this link), the California Court of Appeals agreed with Berti’s position, by finding that the Court retained jurisdiction to hear Berti’s attorneys’ fees request, notwithstanding Levy’s voluntary dismissal.