• Trial Results- Commercial Litigation
  • Jury Trial
  • Federal Court
  • Central District California, Los Angeles
  • The Honorable Judge Andre Birotte presiding

Pacheco & Neach pc represented a high net worth couple who owned several learning institutions including a large private college in China. A U.S. corporation, that had purchased and then later sold the college, alleged breach of contract, fraud and other related claims. The US corporation was represented by a stable of attorneys from Texas (3), one from California and lead trial counsel was specifically flown in immediately before the jury trial from New York. Plaintiff sought $30 million plus from P&N clients. P&N was led by lead counsel Rod Pacheco. Brian Neach, Managing Director, handled all pretrial litigation and a host of trial legal issues.

While many witnesses were called during the jury trial, the CEO of the US corporation was the main witness. He had conducted, with the assistance of others, the investigation into the sale of the college and subsequent transactions which Plaintiff claimed reflected the fraudulent nature of all transactions. Plaintiff claimed that those transactions led to the financial demise of a very significant corporation. His testimony was critical to the success or failure of all the Plaintiff’s claims. He was aggressively cross examined by Mr. Pacheco. The trial lasted approximately two weeks.

Result: Unanimous jury verdict in favor of Defendants, P&N clients, on all claims. Of special note, the jury returned their verdicts in one hour, while they were having lunch.

  • Trial Results- Commercial Litigation
  • Jury Trial
  • Federal Court
  • Central District California, Santa Ana
  • The Honorable Judge David Carter presiding

Pacheco & Neach pc represented a California privately held corporation accused of numerous violations of the Clean Waters Act, a federal law regulating and enforcing laws regarding pollutants in the nation’s water systems. The Complaint was filed by a very prominent nonprofit California corporation that had decades of experience suing corporations on these issues. They had never lost a case.

Opposing counsel at the outset made heavy and aggressive demands for settlement monies and extremely restrictive equitable relief while advising that the law was essentially strict liability. The demands by opposing counsel and the nonprofit only increased as pretrial litigation continued, reaching well over one million dollars. Plaintiff also demanded a consent decree against the P&N client.

In what would normally have lasted two weeks, a jury trial in front of Judge Carter was “shoehorned” into one week, with counsel working every day in court from 8 AM through 8 PM. To the inestimable credit of the presiding judge, he worked the hardest.

Plaintiff called a number of witnesses including an expert witness who had been working in the Clean Waters field for decades and was well versed in litigation. He testified unequivocally that the defendant corporation was clearly in violation of several claims made by Plaintiff, not only from his expertise but also from his onsite inspection and other inspections conducted by other Plaintiff personnel. His cross examination was led by Mr. Pacheco, who also handled the cross exam of all other of Plaintiff’s witnesses. Mr. Neach handled all legal issues in the trial and in one remarkable dispute with opposing counsel secured a devastating ruling from the court on the critical legal issue. It was that issue that became the centerpiece of Mr. Pacheco’s closing argument.

In the late afternoon, the day before closing arguments, opposing counsel renewed their last settlement offer claiming that the trial was essentially over after their cross examination of a critical defense expert witness.

Result: Unanimous jury verdict in favor of defendant corporation, P&N client, on all claims. Of special note, it was learned after the verdicts that the jury returned their verdicts in approximately ten (10) minutes before they went to lunch.

  • Jury Trial- Civil Litigation
  • State Court
  • Riverside County
  • The Honorable Judge Taylor presiding

Pacheco & Neach pc represented a high net worth individual who had loaned a close family relative hundreds of thousands of dollars on numerous occasions over a thirty-year period. Unfortunately, that money had never been repaid. Further complicating the matter were issues of statute of limitations, a lack of records of many of the loans, loans that were made by third parties to the client who had then passed it on to the defendants, and a few records that were family made not actual detailed business records. Further exacerbating issues, what records were available contradicted themselves, and given the numerous transactions over a thirty year time period, there were significant failures of recollection by the client and their spouse.

The jury trial lasted well over two weeks with a large number of Plaintiff witnesses called by P&N counsel. Mr. Pacheco and Mr. Neach conducted the trial with the former handling the arguments and witnesses and the latter handling all legal issues before and during trial. Many of Plaintiff’s witnesses were hostile, due to the familial nature of the matter, and needed to be cross examined on direct exam, particularly the main defendant, the brother-in-law of Plaintiff.

Result: Unanimous jury verdicts on 15 out of 18 claims made by Plaintiff, a P&N client, representing the bulk of the outstanding loans.

  • Arbitration Trial- Hostile Work Environment, Wrongful Termination, FEHA
  • JAMS-Riverside County
  • The Honorable Judge Brisco presiding

Pacheco & Neach pc represented a P.H.D. who had been hired as a Clinical Director for one of the sites of a national corporation. The corporation was a non-profit that receives revenues amounting to close to $100 million per year and has a national media profile. Literally on her first day and for the month that followed her direct supervisor, the Executive Director of the site, sexually harassed her in a variety of ways. Our client complained immediately and in writing to the leaders of the organization including the Board of Directors and the national CEO. Instead of taking action to protect our client and stop the hostile work environment national leadership started a covert investigation of the victim which eventually led to her termination.

Difficulties arose immediately for the Plaintiff as the leadership intimidated a number of workers from corroborating the unlawful acts and in at least one instance a top manager was intimidated and then fired for providing evidence of the Executive Director’s misdeeds. The aggressive actions by management chilled the desire by any workers to come forward with evidence.

Prior to trial very low offers were made by opposing counsel to settle, which were rejected by the client. Opposing counsel explained that he did not see any basis for liability and little existence of damages.

Trial proceeded for approximately three weeks with extensive briefing and the testimony of numerous expert witnesses.

Result: At the conclusion of trial both the Executive Director and the national corporation were found liable on numerous claims including hostile work environment, retaliation, wrongful termination as well as other related claims. In addition, the court awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs. The monetary award well exceeded $1 million.

  • White Collar
  • State Court
  • Riverside County
  • The Honorable Judge Jackson presiding

Pacheco & Neach pc represented the CEO of a multimillion-dollar corporation, which generated over $350 million per year in large scale construction across the state of California. Local prosecutors suspected the CEO of large-scale embezzlement and promptly filed twenty-eight felony charges based on their assumptions. Upon filing Mr. Pacheco made clear to prosecutors that his client was innocent and that he would not accept any plea bargain and would either have a jury trial or dismissal.

Over eighteen months from filing Mr. Pacheco fought prosecutors with various motions and prevented his client from being arraigned, booked or posting bail. One such motion was actually made by prosecutors, seeking an injunction freezing the considerable real property of the CEO during the pendency of the litigation. Though this is a routine motion that is summarily granted by courts in White Collar cases, Mr. Pacheco fought it aggressively.

In his Opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction Mr. Pacheco proved that there was a lack of evidence against his client which convinced the judge that the legal standard, “a probability of success on the merits”, could not be established by prosecutors.

Results: Shortly after losing the motion to secure a preliminary injunction prosecutors dismissed all counts and the case with prejudice.

  • White Collar & Civil Litigation
  • State Court
  • Riverside County and Orange County

In a long running saga Mr. Pacheco was able to convince two different prosecutorial offices not to file criminal charges against his clients, owners of a significant multi-million dollar Los Angeles construction company. The investigations came out of a scheme by Riverside County officials, from the CEO on down, to retaliate against the construction company and its owners for filing suit against the county for non-payment on several construction jobs.

The retaliation began with the hiring of a labor compliance firm, led by its owner who remarked in an email that she wanted the construction company owner to go to prison though she admittedly had not even begun her investigation. For some time, the labor compliance company worked with two prosecutor’s offices in an effort to convince them to file charges. She did convince other state government agencies to begin various investigations that were designed to stop payment to the construction company owner for the jobs he had been awarded.

Due to her efforts five search warrants were served by both prosecutor’s offices and all business records and computers were seized from the construction company offices. Shortly thereafter Mr. Pacheco was hired whereupon he discovered the link between the civil suit against Riverside County and the labor compliance firm. He then took over the civil suit at the request of the client and exposed the unlawful relationship between Riverside County officials and the labor firm.

In investigating further Mr. Pacheco discovered that an Orange County prosecutor was working with the labor compliance firm to conceal valuable and exculpatory evidence both covertly and in court proceedings.

Once the conspiratorial relationships between the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, the labor compliance firm and Riverside County administrative officials were uncovered the evidence was presented to the leadership of the Orange County and Riverside County District Attorneys’ offices.

Results: After reviewing the evidence, including but not limited to deposition transcripts, both counties stopped their criminal investigations and made clear no criminal charges would be filed. Moreover, Mr. Pacheco’s handling of the civil suit against Riverside County included an investigation of violations of his client’s civil rights. When Mr. Pacheco’s intentions to file a civil rights suit against Riverside County, the CEO and other top officials became known to lawyers for Riverside County, they quickly settled the matter for millions of dollars rather than be exposed.

  • Jury trial- Civil Litigation
  • State Court
  • Riverside County
  • The Honorable Judge Ottolia presiding

In this matter Mr. Pacheco’s clients were facing suit by a former business partner of their father and his trust, in which the clients now served as Trustees. The trust had a significant net worth in a multimillion dollar civil litigation against individual and corporate defendants who were alleged in nine claims a variety of claims including but not limited to breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff’s allegations were based on a written loan contract between the former Trustee and the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was suing for the loan amount previously extended to the trust, interest (12%), and attorney’s fees which were substantial.

The facts alleged included but were not limited to complete admissions by one client on a voicemail recording, various documents prepared by clients acknowledging debt owed by trust and breach of contract, and wire transfers showing large scale loans by Plaintiff to Trustee. Despite the mountain of evidence Mr. Pacheco took an unusual position and filed a Cross complaint to support it, that the loan was nothing more than a sham contract which did not exist and that the Plaintiff and former Trustee had engaged in a tax fraud scheme relating to a multimillion dollar commercial property.  

Results: The jury completely disregarded the evidence compiled against Mr. Pacheco’s clients and denied liability on all Plaintiff’s claims. At the conclusion Pacheco moved for attorney’s fees and costs relying on the very contract he had proven was a sham. The trial court granted his motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff appealed and Pacheco & Neach handled the appeal. The Appellate Court affirmed the jury’s verdicts and the award of attorney’s fees and costs.

  • Arbitration trial- Commercial Litigation
  • AAA-Los Angeles County
  • Three judge panel presiding

Rod Pacheco was lead counsel representing an international manufacturer of major sunglasses for a variety of well-known sunglass companies, such as Oakley. His clients sold their business to a German company that was already engaged in the apparel business internationally. After the sale Rod’s clients stayed on as consultants and were expecting follow up payments based on economic factors. The German purchaser declined to make the payments and a lawsuit proceeded. It was at this juncture Mr. Pacheco was brought into try the matter.

In addition to the Complaint filed by Pacheco’s clients for breach of contract and related claims, the German company filed a Counter Claim alleging fraud and seeking $20 million in damages.

The arbitration trial involved numerous experts from around the world, extensive testimony from both sides and several depositions taken in other states. A three judge panel from AAA presided over the month long litigation hearing.

Results: Complete verdict for Plaintiffs on their Complaint and a complete verdict denying liability on the $20 million Counter Claim.

  • Internal investigation- White Collar
  • Northern California

Mr. Pacheco was brought in to lead an internal investigation that was foundering at the hands of original counsel. The investigation was commissioned by a prominent national insurance company that suspected possible fraud by some of its personnel, specifically salespersons. Mr. Pacheco was advised by General Counsel to work with existing counsel to investigate these suspicions.

In leading an investigator and co-counsel Mr. Pacheco uncovered a massive multimillion dollar fraud being committed by large numbers of salesmen. Further, those personnel were being led and “tutored” by the company’s top salesman whose compensation exceeded $1 million annually. In addition, he had established a connection with Wells Fargo bank personnel that allowed him and his cohorts to create hundreds, if not more, of sham bank accounts for nonexistent people. As a result of this investigation Wells Fargo was later investigated and sanctioned by the federal government. 

The second part of Mr. Pacheco’s task was working with local prosecutors throughout Northern California and with federal prosecutors in the Northern District to encourage action by them. Due to Mr. Pacheco’s statewide reputation as an elected official and prosecutor he was able to interact closely with local and federal prosecutors. He conducted numerous conferences with presentations of evidence in order to stimulate government action. 

Results: Mr. Pacheco’s client terminated the employment of the salespersons engaged in fraud based on the evidence accumulated during the internal investigation. And federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against the leaders of the fraud and remanded them to custody.  

(Partial Listings)