firm resume:

Audet & Partners, LLP, is an AV-rated trial firm based San Francisco.

The Antitrust Division of Audet & Partners represents small and mid-sized businesses in antitrust, price fixing, and other related actions.

The Firm and its members serve as Court-appointed Counsel in federal and state cases throughout the United States, and are currently involved in complex cases pending in California, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine, Tennessee, Texas, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida and other states. The Firm has been dedicated to quality representation of its clients and prides itself on aggressive advocacy of its clients' claims. These cases include:

Antitrust

In re PRK/Lasik, Laser Surgery Overcharges Litigation, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV772894. The Firm serves as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel in a nationwide class action case alleging antitrust violations against Visx, Inc. and Summit, Inc.

Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 1200 (and related cases). Mr. Audet of the Firm serves as one of five Court-appointed Discovery Committee members and as Plaintiffs' Counsel in a national class action antitrust case pending against the manufacturers of flat glass.

Toys "R" Us Antitrust Litigation, United States District, Northern District of California, No. C-97-3931-TEM. The Firm filed a national class action antitrust complaint on behalf of toy consumers.

Los Angeles Milk Antitrust Litigation, Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, No. BC 070661. The Firm, along with other Plaintiffs' Counsel, represents consumers arising out of claims of antitrust violations against Los Angeles supermarkets due to alleged price fixing of milk.

California Indirect Purchaser Auction House Cases, San Francisco Superior Court, No. 310313. In this case against Christie's, Sotheby's and others, Defendants are charged with conspiring to fix commissions for the sale at auction of art and other items in California. The Firm serves on the Executive Committee.

Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 2969. The Firm represents independent pharmacies pursuing claims against major drug manufacturers for violation of California's price fixing statutes.

In re Vitamin Antitrust Litigation, (California, North Carolina, Tennessee and Maine). The firm serves as lead counsel in three states and on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in one state in claims involving alleged price fixing by the manufacturers of vitamin products.

In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1311. The firm serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of price fixing in the Methionine industry.

In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 1310. The firm serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of antitrust violations in the Bromine industry.

In re Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation, C.D. Cal., C 99-11475 RJK (AIJx). Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of carbon fibers were sued by makers of airplanes, spacecraft parts, industrial and sporting equipment for conspiring to maintain an artificially inflated price for their product. The Firm serves as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.

In re: Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, S.D.Fla. MDL 1317. In this lawsuit Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to create a monopoly and fix prices of this widely used prescription drug as well as preventing the sale of any generic bioequivalent to Hytrin. The Firm serves as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.

Securities & Insider-Trading

Adaptec Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV 772590. The Firm serves as Liaison Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of Adaptec, Inc.

Informix Derivative Securities Litigation, San Mateo Superior Court, California, Case No. 402254. The Firm serves as one of the Plaintiffs' Derivative Counsel in a shareholder lawsuit alleging derivative claims on behalf of Informix.

Solv-Ex Securities Litigation, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, New Mexico, No. CV-96-09869. The Firm serves as Plaintiffs' Class Counsel in a suit alleging securities fraud against Solv-Ex Corporation and other insider defendants.

Imp, Inc., Securities Litigation, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV762109. The Firm represents shareholders of Imp, Inc. in an action against certain insiders of Imp, Inc., for alleged insider trading of the Company's stock.

CBT Group Derivative Litigation, San Mateo Superior Court, California, No. 406767. The firm serves as one of two plaintiffs' counsel representing shareholders of CBT Group, PLC, in a derivative action against officers and directors of the Company.

Oakley Technology Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV75829. The Firm serves as one of three co-lead counsel in a derivative securities case brought on behalf of shareholders of Oakley Technology, Inc., brought against certain Officers and Directors of the Company.

Horizon Securities Litigation, United States District Court for New Mexico, No. 96-0442 BB/LCS. The Firm serves as one of the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel in a securities case filed against New Mexico-based Horizon Corporation for alleged violation of federal securities laws.

Bay Networks Securities Litigation (Garnier v. Bay Networks, CV764357; Greeneway v. Bay Networks, CV765564), Santa Clara County Superior Court, California The Firm serves as one of four-plaintiffs' counsel representing shareholders of Bay Networks for alleged securities violations.

Unison Healthcare Corporation Litigation, United States District Court of Arizona, Case No. Civ. 97-0583-PHX. The Firm serves as one of the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel representing investors in Unison Healthcare.

S3 Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV770254. The Firm serves as one of the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of S-3, Inc.

In re Networks Associates Derivative Litigation, Superior Court, Santa Clara County, California, Consolidated Case No. CV-781854. In this case, shareholders sued officers and directors of this leading manufacturer of anti-virus and protocol analyzer software who sold over 800,000 shares of their personal stock for more than $33 million by misleading the public regarding its value. The Firm serves as Liaison Counsel.

In re Oak Technology Derivative Action, Superior Court, Santa Clara County, California, No. CV758629. Shareholders sued directors and officers to recover more than $100 million Defendants made by artificially inflating the company's stock, representing that exceptional demand for the company's products existed. In fact, the company's shipments of CD-ROM controllers far exceeded what the market could absorb. Three related derivative cases were filed and subsequently consolidated. The firm serves as Lead Counsel in this lawsuit.

In re Sybase Derivative Litigation, N.D.Cal., No. C-98-0252-CAL. Founded in 1984, Sybase makes computer database management systems. Clients include financial service, telecommunication, energy, government, retail, manufacturing, media, entertainment and healthcare providers. The Firm serves as Plaintiffs' counsel in this stockholder's derivative action brought on behalf of Sybase against certain of the Company's present and former officers and/or directors for insider trading.

Consumer Litigation

Roberts v. Bausch & Lomb, United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, No. CV-94-C-1144-W. The Firm served on the Plaintiffs' Committee in this nationwide consumer class action. A settlement against Bausch & Lomb was approved by the Court on August 1, 1996. Under the settlement, Bausch & Lomb will pay up to $68 million in cash and products to 1.5 million buyers of the Company's disposable contact lenses.

Hilla v. TCI Cablevision, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV-769105. The Firm represents California residents involving allegedly illegal overcharges by the cable company for late fees.

Plotkin v. General Electric, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Action No. C-92-4447. The Firm led the nation in charging General Electric with defrauding the American public in the sale of Energy Choice Light Bulbs which were claimed to be energy efficient, required less electricity and would preserve the environment. General Electric subsequently settled this national class action.

Afanador v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV-767677. The Firm, along with other Plaintiffs' Counsel, represents consumers in claims against H&R Block arising out of its "Rapid Refund" program.

Sears Automotive Center Consumer Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-92-2227. The Firm filed suit on behalf of consumers defrauded by Sears' Auto Centers. The case was successfully concluded in August 1992. The Firm was appointed to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.

Honda Dealers Litigation, United States District Court, District of Maryland, MDL No. 1069. In May, 1994, this Firm filed a national class action for 1,250 Honda and Acura dealers who refused to pay bribes or kickbacks to Honda sales executives. Twenty-three former senior Honda sales executives have been indicted and twenty-one have pled guilty. Two were found guilty at trial. Cases filed in federal court across the United States are now coordinated for pretrial discovery in the U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore. This Firm serves as Chair of the Management Committee and represents a number of Honda dealers. The case was recently settled for in excess of $100 million.

Hoeffner v. Vieira, Superior Court, Sacramento, California, No. 97AS02993. For years, hundreds of cremated human remains were subjected to unlawful conduct by Defendants. Infractions included multiple cremations, commingling of remains and failure to provide the dignified disposition the Defendants had promised their customers. Ultimately hundreds were discovered "stored" in commercial facilities. The Firm serves as one of Plaintiffs' counsel representing loved ones seeking restitution for these illegal and disrespectful activities.

Chamberlain v. Flashcom, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 00 CC 04212. In this class action, the Firm serves as one of Plaintiffs' counsel seeking a remedy against Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business conduct. After contracting with and charging customers for DSL internet service without actually providing it, Flashcom charged a $250 penalty to those customers who elected to terminate their contracts before service activation.

Providian Credit Card Cases, San Francisco Superior Court, JCCP No. 4085. Through television commercials, direct mail and the internet, the Providian Defendants purported to facilitate the issuance of credit cards to people with damaged credit histories. For very little credit, however, customers were charged excessive fees, high interest rates and were subjected to a host of egregious financial improprieties enriching Defendants. The Firm serves as class counsel.

Product Liability and Defect Litigation

Galanti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, United States District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 03-209. Court-appointed Class Counsel with pending $300 million settlement involving a defective radiant heating system.

Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, San Francisco County Superior Court, California, No. 995787, and Chambers, et al., v. Weyerhaeuser, King County Superior Court, Washington, No. 98-2-21084-2 KNT. The firm serves as one of three class counsel in a class case involving allegations of defective siding manufactured by Weyerhaeuser.

Roy v. Cemwood Corporation, Contra Costa County Superior Court, California, No.: MSC99-00499. The firm serves as one of four co-lead counsel in a national class case involving allegations of defective roofing products.

Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), et al., v. Philip Morris, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. C 99-02621 MHP. The firm represents Native American Tribes seeking to challenge the $200 billion plus state tobacco agreement on the grounds that it violates their civil rights.

Evarkiou v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-93-0844-SAW. An action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of 429,000 owners of 1988-91 3.8-Liter Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable and Lincoln Continental. The Firm sought relief as a result of power steering hoses that were prone to rupture due to a design defect resulting in loss of steering and possibly fires. In a unique settlement, in which no class member released any claim, Ford agreed to issue a Technical Service Bulletin addressing this problem and to sell power steering hoses only in special boxes containing the TSB, all appropriate warnings and installation instructions with the appropriate heat shield and tie straps at a 30% discount. Total value of the benefit conferred is estimated at approximately $2,000,000.

Johnson v. Nissan Motor Company Inc., U.S.A., Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. 7305558. A $20 million estimated total recovery for 33,000 owners of 1987-90 Nissan minivans which were the subject of three recalls because of engine failures and fires before The Alexander Law Firm filed suit in April 1993. On February 2, 1994, one week before the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class action, Nissan negotiated a settlement of the class action, stipulated to the certification of a national class, and resolved a federal investigation by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration by voluntarily agreeing to an unprecedented buy-back of 33,000 vans at fair market value. The Firm served as Plaintiffs' Class Counsel.

General Motors Corporation Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 961 (Master File No. 92-6450). The Alexander Law Firm represents 278 of 283 plaintiffs before the Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr. The Firm's contribution to the legal team focused on our practical experience in gas tank failure cases: retention of experts and preparation of direct testimony of liability experts for preliminary motions and trial focusing on defects in the saddlebag tank, proposed alternative placement and designs which would maintain fuel system integrity. On July 3, 1996, a $5 billion dollar settlement of this national class action was announced. The new settlement meets all the objections raised to a previous class action settlement for GM truck owners which was reversed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and by the Texas Court of Appeals. All lawsuits against GM filed in federal courts across the United States were transferred to the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia under federal Multi-District Litigation rules. The Federal Court Plaintiffs, by agreement with attorneys in state cases, filed across the South and joined all cases for settlement purposes in Louisiana state court.

In re Stucco Litigation, (Ruff v. Parex) County of New Hanover, North Carolina, No. 96-CVS-0059. Firm member William M. Audet serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. The case was filed on behalf of homeowners who have on their homes defective synthetic stucco.

"Fen-Phen" Product Liability Litigation, MDL 1203. The Firm has filed a medical monitoring and punitive damage claim on behalf of California residents arising out of the diet drugs popularly known as "fen-Phen."

Silicone Gel Implants Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, MDL No. 926. The Firm represents 250 women with implants in conjunction with the national class action in Birmingham, Alabama.

Stuart Hanlon, et al., v. Chrysler Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-95-2010 CAL. The Firm is one of eight firms that filed suit seeking correction of defective rear hatch door lock failures in nominal impacts for 3,300,000 owners of Chrysler minivans. Actions were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and state courts in New York, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama. These related class actions resulted in a negotiated settlement under which Chrysler became contractually bound to all owners of 1984 through 1995 Chrysler minivans to replace existing rear hatch door locks.

PSA December 1987 Air Crash, Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, No. C671784. The Firm served on the Statewide Committee of Plaintiffs' Attorneys for the December 7, 1987, USAir/PSA Flight 1771 Air Disaster litigation.

Smith v. Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara County, California, Superior Court, CV 776794. In 1995, HP introduced CD Recorders designed to both read and record data. Contrary to HP's representations, the Recorders could only consistently and reliably record less user data than the industry standard. When attempting to record more, error messages appeared, previously recorded data was lost and the CD became useless. The Firm serves as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel.

Insurance/Healthcare Litigation

In Re Unum Provident Litigation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, MDL No. 1552. The firm serves as Court-appointed Lead Counsel in pending class action on behalf of Plaintiffs alleging the wrongful denial of benefits under long term disability policies.

In Re: Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, E.D. La., MDL Nos. 1371, 1382, 1390, 1391, and 1395. The firm serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. The class cases involve claims that insurance companies overcharge African-Americans for life and health insurance.

In Re: Life of Georgia Insurance Litigation, Thirteenth Judicial District, Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee. Reached nationwide class settlement in 2002 on behalf of class of insureds discriminated against in the issuance of life insurance.

Thorn v. Jefferson Pilot Insurance Co., U.S.D.C. S.C., Pending nationwide class on behalf of purchasers of life insurance. The Firm represents the proposed Plaintiffs class alleging racial discrimination in the issuance of life insurance policies

In Re: Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456. This firm is a Court appointed member of the Executive Committee, representing Plaintiffs in a nation-wide class action allegedly the manipulation of pricing for prescription drugs.

In Re Tenet Healthcare Litigation, Los Angeles County, Superior Court, California. Numerous actions coordinated in 2002 by the Judicial Council. The firm is one of three Court appointed lead counsel on behalf of nationwide class of individuals who were allegedly overcharged directly, or through their health insurance for medical services, products and medication.

Lawson, et al., v. Liberty Life, Birmingham, Alabama, No. 96-1119. The Firm, along with four other Plaintiffs' Counsel, represents a proposed class of life insurance policy holders of Liberty Life Corporation who were subjected to unlawful life insurance policy "churning" by Liberty Life.

Employment Rights

Allstate Insurance Agent Litigation, Superior Court, California, J.C.C.P. Nos. 2984 & 2985. The Firm represented hundreds of California Allstate Insurance agents who had not been reimbursed for the cost of maintaining Allstate offices between January 1, 1990, and April 30, 1996. In January 1995, the Court certified this case as a class action and final settlement was approved on March 20, 1996.

Toxic Torts

Ruffing et al., v. Union Carbide, IBM, et al., Supreme Court of State of New York, Westchester County, 114563/96 and related cases - The firm represents over one hundred 'clean room' workers with cancer who were exposed to toxins at the IBM semiconductor fabrication plant in Fishkill, NY. The litigation also includes over twenty children born with major birth defects. They are the offspring of male and female clean room workers who were working in the "clean rooms" when their children were conceived and during gestation. These IBM workers worked in particle free 'clean rooms" where they were exposed to organic solvents and complex chemical mixtures used to make microchips. Adult workers suffer from testicular, cervical, uterine, brain cancers as well as Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, multiple myeloma and leukemia. Infant plaintiffs suffer from craniofacial anomalies, respiratory and vision impairments.

In Re San Jose IBM Workers Litigation, Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, Master file No. 772093 Personal injury and wrongful death claims for 40 IBM workers and their children who were exposed to toxins at the IBM general products facility in San Jose, CA. These IBM workers worked in particle free 'clean rooms" where they were exposed to organic solvents, disk drive coatings and complex chemical mixtures used to make IBM's electronic business equipment. Adult cancers include Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia, brain , kidney, breast, ovarian, vaginal and pancreatic cancers. Infant plaintiffs suffer from developmental delays.

Harris et at., v. National Semiconductor, et al., Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California. Class action for all clean room workers at National Semiconductor and its subsidiaries who have developed cancer and for all offspring of clean room workers born with congenital anomalies. The adult cancers include leukemia and cancers of the breast, brain, and uterus. Birth defects in offspring include missing fingers, dental anomalies, and neurologic deficits.

Alexander v. Ashland, Alameda County, California, No. H 191171-6. The Firm represents the widow and two adult children of a printing press operator who worked for Reynolds Metals Can Plant in Hayward, California, for over twenty years before dying of a brain tumor at the age of 44. Mr. Alexander suffered long-time exposure to solvent-based inks and coatings which plaintiffs allege caused his brain tumor. The case settled in July 1998 in the middle of trial.

Huffman v. Ashland, Alameda County, CA No. H-205739-4. Mr. Huffman was Mr. Alexander's co-worker at the Reynolds plant. He died of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in August 1998, following 13 years of exposure to solvent-based inks and coatings.

Mohnhaupt v. Borden, et al., Santa Clara Superior Ct CV743281. The firm represented the widow and 7 children of a man who died of leukemia at age 29. His death came ten years after he began working in a cabinet door company where he used solvent-based spray adhesives with minimal protection.

Sacramento River Spill Litigation, San Francisco Superior Court, Judicial Council Coordination Nos. 2617 & 2620. The Firm spearheaded $15.5 million recovery for the victims of the pollution of the Sacramento River of July 1991 when a 19,000 gallon tank car derailed at the Cantara Loop spilling metam sodium and releasing methyl isothiocyanate, a respiratory irritant, affecting 3000 residents of the Dunsmuir and Lake Shasta area. The Firm served on the Court-appointed Steering Committee. The Firm was also a member of the Court-appointed four attorney team that negotiated the final settlement.

GCC Richmond Works Case, Contra Costa County Superior Court, Martinez, California, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2906. $180,000,000 final settlement in the Richmond Toxic Cloud class action litigation which arose from the explosion of a tank car of oleum, concentrated sulfuric acid and sulfuric trioxide, in July 1993, at the sulfuric acid manufacturing plant operated by General Chemical Company in Richmond, California. General Chemical was the sole provider of sulfuric acid to Chevron's Northern California gasoline refinery. As an active member of the Class Action Executive Committee and the Plaintiffs' Management Committee, the Firm was responsible for overseeing and prosecuting this combined class and mass tort action.

Strawsburg v. Shield, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. C2-94-1069. The Firm filed suit and served as the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel in an action against a nuclear waste facility for selling gravel and fill dirt that has a level of radioactivity that is five times greater than allowed by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. This class action seeks clean-up and medical monitoring for all people living within 20 miles of the waste facility who have been exposed. Final approval of a negotiated settlement, cleanup and property damage compensation package was granted in December 1996.

David Loux, et al., v. Allied Signal Corp., et al., Amador County Superior Court, California, No. 95-CI-7198. The Firm represents 143 adults and children who live in the Mesa del Oro neighborhood of Sutter Creek in an action against the owner of the mine, Allied Signal. The lawsuit, filed in April 1995, seeks compensation for property damage, nuisance and fear of cancer due to an 11-acre pile of mine tailings containing arsenic upon which a new subdivision was built. The case settled in April 1998.

Alviso Community Organization v. Maciel, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. 72808. This is the first medical monitoring class action certified in California. The case was settled October 1994. The Firm was appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel on behalf of a Hispanic neighborhood of 2,500 who had been exposed to asbestos-laden dust from adjacent businesses.

Other Complex Litigation

Byer v. Market Transport: After an eight-day trial the jury awarded plaintiffs $8 million. Byer, age 15, suffered irreversible brain damage when the Byer family car was sideswiped by a tractor and trailer. Nevarez v. Foremost Dairies: A multi-vehicle auto-truck collision that resulted in identical C-5/C-6 quadriplegic injuries to a father and daughter when their car was rear-ended on smoke-covered I-5 by the defendant's tractor and trailer. Total settlement of $11 million. Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing: The California Supreme Court unanimously recognized the special risks presented to construction workers, confirmed the duty of their employer to take special precautions to prevent on-the-job injuries and reaffirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff. Helm's Creek Hydroelectric Facility: Represented five families in wrongful death actions against PG&E arising from a defectively designed scaffolding system in a 500' vertical shaft which failed. Structured settlements providing in excess of $25 million to the surviving families. Throop V. Conrail: An $8.5 million award for triple amputation electrical burn injuries suffered by a teenager trespassing on railroad property. First lawyer in the United States to uncover and prove the railroad's electrical system had caused, on average, 24 deaths/major injuries per year. Sinacore v. Superior Court, 81 CA3d 223, a case of first impression in California, recognizing the confidentiality of a social worker's records of children. Sollfrank v. Mid-Cal Farms: A $2.3 million recovery for the wrongful death of a husband and father caused by drunk driving. Doe v. Jeske: A $1.1 million verdict for a twelve-year-old victim of child molestation. Cunningham v. Shortstop: Recovery of $1.5 million in cash, plus an annual annuity of $40,000, for a brain-damaged teenager injured by a teenage driver who was intoxicated by beer sold by defendant. Valente v. Union Oil: A construction laborer employed by Timec to perform routine repairs to union Oil's Santa Maria refinery was burned by steam escaping from a defective pipe fitting. McGreevy v. Abbott: First civil child molestation case tried in Santa Clara County. Smethurst v. G&W Specialty Company: Settled the morning of trial after extensive pre-trial discovery against manufacturers of a 12,000 volt oil-filled switch which exploded when Smethurst turned the switch to the wrong position and, contrary to good practice, attempted to return the switch to its original position. Furchtenicht v. Peabody Barnes and General Electric: Chief counsel for plaintiffs in a product liability case for wrongful death. California Casualty v. Weber: Chief counsel for the victims of child molestation in a case of first impression in Santa Clara County. The court held that Weber suffered from a mental disease, could not control his conduct in accordance with reason and the insurance carrier, under these limited circumstances, was obligated to satisfy the victims' claims for damages, even though a result of criminal conduct. Bucol v. City of Oakland: Arose from the shooting death of an 18-year-old in the Oakland Auditorium at a Kool and The Gang Concert, by unknown assailants. Thorough investigation and discovery showed that the City and rock promoter failed to establish reasonable security precautions, despite knowing the reputation of the character of the crowd usually attracted by this type of concert and not stopping the concert when multiple fights and thefts were reported. Pacific West Cable Company v. City of Sacramento: Chief trial counsel in the first jury trial in the United States contesting the power of cities to grant an exclusive monopoly to a cable television firm. Century Federal v. Cities of Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park: A federal civil rights action for denying free press rights by granting a monopoly to one cable television company. San Francisco Federal Judge Eugene Lynch ordered the defendant cities to allow construction of Century's cable system. Whiteley and Cox v. The State of California: $1,750,000 recovery in a personal injury action against the California Highway Patrol arising from a late-night pursuit of an escapee from the California Youth Authority. Collins v. Van Waters & Rogers: A products liability action, involved the first medically reported case of lip cancer secondary to repeated exposure to liquid chromate solvents used as cleaning agents in the manufacture of electronic components. A case of first impression. Ingvardsen v. Lucky Stores: One of the first defective product L-tryptophan poisoning cases to be set for trial.