Pacheco & Neach PC was retained after years of litigation between a significant California-based construction company and the subcontractor company it hired to install elevators in two multimillion-dollar construction projects. Again, Rod Pacheco was referred to the client as lead trial counsel in federal court.

After retention, a comprehensive review and analysis of the voluminous documents began. Compounding the preparation were two opposing counsels steeped in the sharp practices of barely ethical lawyers. One of their tactics, common for such lawyers, was to create as much busy work as possible to increase litigation costs for our client. Given that the subcontractor company was an international elevator company with significant financial resources, the imbalance was palpable.

The dispute contained two substantial subcontractor contracts with numerous clauses and provisions in contention, many of which were confusing or contradictory. One of the contracts was significantly more challenging for us to assert a breach of contract claim than the other. In addition, given some significant and intentional delays by the subcontractor on both projects, negligence claims were also filed, which was a bit unusual for a breach of contract case.

A strategy was devised based on the dynamics of the matter, facts were highlighted, and an emphasis on credibility of witnesses was established at trial. As is customary, the federal judge allotted a set amount of hours for each side to encompass opening and closing statements, all direct examinations, and cross-examinations. Despite the hourly limitation, the trial lasted two weeks.

Cross-examination of two very important witnesses, one formerly employed by the elevator company and one currently employed, would be critical for success. One of the witnesses was cross-examined so thoroughly he ended up testifying for our client rather than against him, though it was evident he did not agree. The other witness, the main defense witness, evaporated on cross-examination.

Lastly, the elevator company had filed a cross-complaint which had to be evaluated and defended against. The cross-complaint encompassed multiple bond claims and a breach of contract for significant unpaid invoices by our client when the elevator company breached. At trial, the cross-complaint was taken apart piece by piece and completely fell apart.

Results: In the end, the jury unanimously found in favor of Pacheco & Neach’s client on their complaint and denied the cross-complaint against them.

It is common for Pacheco & Neach PC to receive inquiries from individuals caught in litigation who are represented by other counsel. In this matter, a healthcare professional was being prosecuted by the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office for numerous charges (eight felonies) of healthcare fraud alleging a kickback scheme with two other individuals.

His previous lawyer had convinced him that he needed to plead guilty to two of the eight felonies, spend significant time in custody, years of formal probation, pay restitution fines and investigative “costs” to the District Attorney’s Office totaling $775,000, and forgo $30 million dollars in liens owed to him in accounts receivable by insurance companies. His previous counsel explained that the case was hopeless and if he didn’t take the deal, he would go to prison.

The two co-defendants took the deal and pled guilty. Our client called Mr. Pacheco instead, hired him, and fired his previous lawyer. In a legal odyssey that lasted two years against two different prosecutorial agencies, both of which are some of the largest and most substantial offices in the nation, Mr. Pacheco fought both of them in turn with a result much different than the initial lawyer tried to convince the client to take.

After securing the case, Pacheco turned to the Riverside prosecutor for discovery of any documents in their possession. He received over 100,000 pages of documents, which Pacheco’s firm sifted through closely over the course of several months. In his review, he found that Riverside County lacked jurisdiction to file any charges against his client.

As a result, a motion to dismiss was filed and argued over by counsel for several months. Literally days before the preliminary hearing (a hearing in criminal cases involving felonies in which a court reviews the evidence for probable cause that the defendant committed a crime), Riverside County announced that they had convinced the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office to file the criminal case. LA had jurisdiction, whereas Riverside finally conceded they did not. After LA filed essentially the same charges with a few extra felonies, Riverside prosecutors dismissed their case.

Mr. Pacheco then appeared in LA Superior Court and requested a quick preliminary hearing, which the judge granted. Unbeknownst to the LA prosecutor, there were several fatal weaknesses to the prosecutor’s case, one of which was a lack of evidence, another of which was several legal obstacles that would come into play at the hearing.

Preliminary hearings are perfunctory hearings in which a judge routinely finds sufficient probable cause from evidence submitted by prosecutors for the case to move forward in the system. If the court cannot find probable cause, the case must be dismissed, though in Mr. Pacheco’s twenty-year prosecutorial experience, he can only recall one felony case that was dismissed at a preliminary hearing. On many occasions, defense attorneys don’t waste their time with even holding such a hearing and they waive the hearing entirely.

As is routine, Pacheco had a strategy for the hearing that involved several different levels and legal objections that would cripple the case or undermine it entirely. What made matters especially difficult was the new plea deals prosecutors had cut with the co-defendants to testify against Pacheco’s client at the hearing.

In a heavily contested and protracted hearing against a Los Angeles prosecutor of thirty years’ experience, Pacheco succeeded in undermining the evidence offered against his client, some of which was barred from even being introduced due to its deficiencies. Despite the prosecutor’s efforts, he could not remedy the fatal problems with the evidence. To make matters worse, Pacheco caught both co-defendants lying on direct examination when they testified for the prosecutor. It was so obvious when they were caught lying on cross-examination that one of the co-defendants testified that she “recanted” her direct testimony.

The court, at Pacheco’s request, dismissed the case entirely. This was the second dismissal of the same case. In California, if a felony is dismissed twice in a certain manner, the charge can never be refiled by prosecutors. At this point in the fight, Pacheco had succeeded in getting the case dismissed twice in the manner it needed to be dismissed.

Despite the law prohibiting prosecutors from refiling the twice-dismissed case, they did so anyway in violation of the law and with full knowledge of it (Mr. Pacheco had informed them of the rule when it was dismissed the second time).

Mr. Pacheco appeared once more on the new case and requested a hearing on a Motion to Dismiss the third complaint filed. The matter was set for hearing, Mr. Pacheco filed the Motion to Dismiss and recounted the two dismissals and the manner in which they were dismissed. He dutifully served the prosecutor with the motion as required by law. The prosecutor then served his reply and attached a court document that changed the manner in which the Riverside case had been dismissed in an attempt to disqualify that dismissal.
Mr. Pacheco then appeared in the Riverside court that changed the court document and learned that the LA and Riverside prosecutors had duped the judge into altering the court document to suit their purposes in a gross violation of their professional ethics. Mr. Pacheco informed the court of the transgression and lack of due process (lack of notice to the defense) and then requested the court vacate its earlier ruling altering the document, which was quickly done.

Result: At the motion hearing, arguments were heard, and the court issued a written ten-page decision recounting the many and varied bases for its dismissal, the third dismissal in the matter. The case was dismissed for all time.

In this matter, a company sued a municipality for outstanding unpaid invoices that amounted to approximately $1 million. The sole shareholder hired a prominent law firm to initiate the suit. After a couple of years of litigation, the municipality altered the litigation positions of the parties substantially.

The new strategy was drawn up by the Senior Partner for the law firm representing the municipality, a heavily experienced and canny civil litigator of some significant reputation. His firm advanced a new counterclaim against the individual and his LLC, which owned the company, seeking approximately $40 million in damages with allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and similar claims. It was at that moment that the client sought trial counsel to defend his position. Rod Pacheco was thereby retained of Pacheco & Neach PC as lead counsel while retaining the other firm as co-counsel.

The litigation was protracted and complex, involving a number of legal issues that were litigated extensively at the trial court level and then the appellate court level. The original company also filed for bankruptcy during the litigation prior to Pacheco’s involvement, which did not negate or stay the new claims against the individual and his LLC.

Mediation was also attempted without success when opposing counsel refused to consider any settlement less than $5 million from the client and his LLC. At the mediation, opposing counsel provided documents that ostensibly proved the frauds alleged, enough to convince the mediator.

Upon the return from the appellate court, opposing counsel sought to file an amended complaint. In what was a simple hearing with the tentative decision on the side of the municipality, Mr. Pacheco reversed the court’s intended decision, convincing the court to deny opposing counsel’s ex parte request. As part of his litigation strategy, Mr. Pacheco outlined for the court, but particularly for opposing counsel, the strategy he intended to implement after the hearing, and he did so in detail. While an uncommon tactic, Mr. Pacheco revealed the strategy so that opposing counsel would be apprised of all that awaited them should they proceed further in their quest to financially destroy Mr. Pacheco’s client. It was designed to instill fear. And it worked.

Later that evening, Mr. Pacheco received a call from the legal architect of the municipality in which he made clear that he had heard Mr. Pacheco’s argument, and he would be dismissing their counterclaim with prejudice immediately. He made clear that they had had enough and did not want to proceed any further.

The first legal maneuver to be implemented was to challenge the standing of the municipality to bring the counterclaim. If successful, the municipality would be stripped of its ability to secure liability on its $40 million claim. And the second was a cross-complaint against the municipality for damaging the client’s business. The cross-complaint would allege damages of more than $10 million. If successful, the strategy would completely reverse the dynamics of the litigation, turning the “prey,” Pacheco’s client, into the “predator.” Instead, the municipality would then become the prey.

Aggressiveness in litigation is essential as it includes determination and will. Mr. Pacheco’s litigation history is filled with examples.

Result: Dismissal with prejudice of a $40 million claim.

Litigation at Pacheco & Neach PC encompasses many subspecialties, including White Collar defense for corporations, their shareholders, and officers. In those moments, the weight and resources of the government, particularly prosecutorial agencies of great size, weigh against the client. As is their custom, prosecutorial offices don’t typically bargain or negotiate as equals but make demands of individuals and corporations that jeopardize not only the continued success of the business in question but can also reach existential levels, where the life of the business is in jeopardy.

When prosecutors target a company, they can do so in the criminal context with criminal penalties, but they can also file civil lawsuits against a company seeking restitution in large amounts, typically more than a million dollars, as well as monitoring of the business that can last years and injunctions that restrict the business and place it essentially under control of the District Attorney’s Office. All of those consequences are severe, but they are exponentially compounded against companies that engage in public works contracts, which can routinely exceed tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. If sued civilly by a prosecutorial agency and found liable, the judgment can bar companies from receiving public works contracts. Consequently, a civil suit by a prosecutor’s office against a public works construction company is “Bet the Company Litigation.”

In this instance, an extremely successful and large construction company, which routinely wins public works contracts of tens of millions of dollars in significant construction projects throughout the western United States, was civilly sued by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. It is routine for that office to engage in these “bounty hunter” lawsuits wherein they seek control of the company through injunctions and monitoring as well as demands for more than a million dollars, for what they describe as “restitution” paid directly to their office. In this instance, our client was threatened with more investigations and more alleged violations by the prosecutor assigned if our clients did not accede to his monetary and injunctive demands. Our client refused to be coerced and hired Pacheco & Neach PC instead.

In what could not have been a coincidence, the prosecutor formerly worked in a civil firm and was sued for malicious prosecution, which settled. He brought all of those “skills” to bear against our client during the prelitigation phase, which we fought until trial. More threats were made by the prosecutor throughout the events leading up to trial.

Because the prosecutor had filed a claim of Business and Professions Code section 17200, a common claim in these matters, described as “unfair or unlawful business practices,” my client had no right to a jury trial.

At trial, extensive motion work was advanced by our office, which severely limited the issues available to the prosecutor, and aggressive cross-examination was brought to bear against every witness called by the prosecutor. In many instances, the witnesses testified to a variety of facts that contradicted the theories of the prosecutor, including his expert witnesses. One expert was caught on cross-examination admitting to racist comments against the Hispanic workers of the company, and in other instances, he was so confused that he was unable to coherently testify to his expert opinions.

At the conclusion of evidence, Rod Pacheco moved the court for a motion to dismiss the case for failure to produce sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof. While these motions are commonly made, they are seldom granted. In this instance, Mr. Pacheco marshaled the evidence that he had produced on cross-examination of the prosecutor’s witnesses that contradicted the prosecutor’s theories. Pacheco also noted the failure of proof for the claim charged. Throughout the trial, the prosecutor had attempted literally hundreds of times to introduce evidence that was stopped by timely legal objections (over 500) by Mr. Pacheco, which contributed to the failure of the OCDA’s Office civil prosecution.

Result: After hearing arguments from both counsel, Judge Recio dismissed the matter with prejudice in its entirety.

Postscript: Because the matter involved a workplace death, OSHA was the originating agency and had filed an administrative case against the company. Due to the dismissal, the OSHA case was likely to follow suit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.