Media

Davis Stibor gets trial victory for commercial landloard

Davis Stibor recently prevailed at trial on behalf of its client, a commercial landlord, against a tenant who breached the lease and vacated the property.  The personal guarantor of the lease was also a defendant in the case.  At trial, the defendants argued that the parties entered into a verbal settlement agreement that induced the tenant to sell all of its equipment and vacate the premises.  The defendants argued that had this agreement not existed, the tenant could have continued doing business and would not have breached the lease.  The defendants argued that the verbal settlement agreement was supported and proven by email correspondence between it and the landlord’s real estate agent.

However, at the trial Davis Stibor presented emails that proved the tenant was going out of business and ran out of money to continue operations long before it sold the equipment and vacated the premises, which contradicted the defendants’ entire defense.  In-fact, Shan Davis’ cross-examination of the personal guarantor consisted of a single question, “Did you state during your direct examination that the [the company] was going out of business?”  The defendant answered, “Yes.”

Mr. Davis’ closing argument tied the evidence, trial testimony and law together, resulting in a decision in favor of Davis Stibor’s client on all claims asserted against the defendants.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.

Davis Stibor Gets Client $850,000

Imagine the stress of not getting paid on a $780,000 loan. Failure to pay back a loan of this size could bankrupt any small investment company. This is exactly what happened to Davis Stibor’s client. Davis Stibor was retained to represent a New Jersey based investment company to recover on a loan it provided to purchase an apartment complex in Henderson, Nevada. After the borrower defaulted, and refused to negotiate a settlement, Davis Stibor filed a complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, and seeking to foreclose on its client’s second deed of trust that secured the loan. The borrower filed a counterclaim against Davis|Stibor’s client seeking to void the second deed of trust alleging that the loan violated Nevada Revised Statute Chapters 645B and 645E, which require residential lenders to be licensed mortgage brokers and/or bankers.

Davis Stibor filed a motion to dismiss the borrower’s counterclaim arguing that because its client was a foreign limited liability company, it was exempt from the requirements of NRS 645B and 645E. After receiving the motion to dismiss, the borrower agreed with all of the arguments and voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim. After five months of intense negotiations, which involved commercial brokers, and third-party purchasers, Davis|Stibor was able to secure $850,000 for its client, which paid the principle of the amount owed on the loan plus interest.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.

Davis Stibor Recovers $390,000.00 For Client On Federal Construction Project

Davis Stibor has a long history of successfully collecting money on behalf of its construction clients.  On December 29, 2015, Davis Stibor collected $390,000.00 for its client on a federal construction project.  The general contractor received payment from the United States for the work Davis Stibor’s client performed, and then failed to pay numerous subcontractors.  On behalf of its client, Davis Stibor made a claim against the general contractor’s payment bond.  In response, the general contractor’s surety (the insurance company that issued the payment bond) alleged that the United States had not paid the general contractor for Davis|Stibor’s client’s work.  Knowing this was probably not true, Davis|Stibor immediately filed a public records request with the United States Army Corp of Engineers (the project administrator) and requested the United States’ payment records.  The documents produced by the Corp of Engineers proved that the general contractor had in-fact been paid for Davis|Stibor’s clients work, and that the Corp affirmed and accepted the work before issuing payment.  Thereafter, working with law firms in Utah, the place of the general contractors’ incorporation, Davis|Stibor was able to force the general contractor to deposit the unpaid sums with the Utah Federal District Court after its bank accounts were effectively frozen.  The Federal District Court issued payment to Davis Stibor’s client shortly thereafter, fully resolving the case.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.

Davis Stibor Gets Defense Verdict In Wrongful Termination Case

Davis Stibor was retained to represent a crane company that was sued for wrongful termination.  According to the complaint, in March 2012, Plaintiff was severely injured when he slipped and broke his hip while working on a crane at the Defendant’s yard.  After several weeks in the hospital, Plaintiff returned to work and was placed on light duty.  Shortly after returning to work, Plaintiff retained an attorney.  In late 2012, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a worker’s compensation claim.  After receiving notice of the claim, Davis|Stibor’s client told all of its workers there would be no work for several days while it obtained a worker’s compensation insurance policy.  During this time, Plaintiff claimed that he called the Defendant several times asking when work would resume.  Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant ignored his calls, and never called him back to work because he made a worker’s compensation claim.  Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging wrongful termination, defamation and sought punitive damages from Davis Stibor’s client.

During his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he had two vehicles, a car and truck, and during six years of employment, he always kept the truck at Defendant’s yard.  Plaintiff also testified that when he was informed there would be no work for several days, he removed the truck from the yard.  When asked why he removed the truck, Plaintiff admitted that he thought he was being terminated.  Plaintiff then testified that Davis|Stibor’s client never told him he was fired, but rather, he assumed he was terminated.

After obtaining this testimony, and confident that it would prevail, Davis Stibor’s client offered to settle the case for a nominal payment to avoid a time consuming trial.  Plaintiff rejected the offer, and the case went to trial.  After presenting its defense, which included cross-examination based on Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, Davis Stibor’s client obtained a decision in its favor on all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.

Davi Stibor Gets Summary Judgment For America’s Fastest Growing Real Estate Company

Davis Stibor was retained by America’s fastest growing real estate company to defend it in a case where the plaintiff alleged that its agent and broker wrongfully told her that mold does not exist in Southern Nevada, and she therefore did not need to conduct a mold inspection of the home she sought to purchase.  After purchasing the home, Plaintiff discovered significant water damage and mold that was hidden by the prior owner.  Plaintiff sued her own realtor, the seller’s realtor and the owner seeking compensatory and treble damages.  Discovery revealed that the Plaintiff signed a mold disclosure acknowledging that mold does exist in Southern Nevada, and it is therefore advisable to obtain a mold inspection before purchasing a home.  The Plaintiff also testified during her deposition that the alleged statement that mold does not exist in Southern Nevada was made before she signed the mold disclosure.  Based on these facts and testimony, Davis|Stibor moved for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the parol evidence rule.  The trial court agreed, and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against our client before the trial.  The dismissal saved our client tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, and potential compensatory and treble damages.      

Shan Davis Selected As A 2015 Super Lawyers Rising Star

Shan Davis, who heads Davis Stibor’s litigation division, was selected for a second consecutive year by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star.  Super Lawyers uses a rigorous nomination and selection process that includes only the top 5% of attorneys in the state.  Rising Stars is even more rigorous, and includes only the top 2.5% of attorneys in the state who are under 40 years old.   

From A $0 Offer To A Six Figure Settlement

Davis|Stibor was retained by a New York investment company to represent it to collect on a commercial deficiency judgment, and to pursue a fraudulent transfer claim against the defendant.  The defendant, a California partnership, retained a prestigious 100 lawyer law firm based in Los Angeles.  After the defendant was served, Davis Stibor received a letter from its high-powered attorney demanding that Davis Stibor’s client immediately voluntarily dismiss the complaint, or face paying the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.  On behalf of its client, Davis Stibor rejected the demand and pursued the case.  Shortly after the demand was rejected, confident that it would prevail, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, and requested attorney’s fees and costs.  Faced with a very difficult legal argument, Davis Stibor opposed the motion to dismiss, and after lengthy oral argument, the Court denied the defendant’s motion.

After the defendant’s motion was denied, Davis Stibor aggressively pursued discovery.  During discovery, the defendant claimed that it was insolvent and could not pay any judgment that Davis|Stibor’s client obtained.  Regardless, after making several document requests, as predicted, Davis Stibor discovered that the defendant transferred tenant rent funds that should have been used to pay the promissory note to various third-party businesses and individuals.  After Davis Stibor discovered these documents, rather than allowing the third-parites to be named as co-defendants, the defendant offered to settle the case.  After limited negotiations, Davis Stibor was able to secure a six figure settlement on behalf of its client.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.

Davis Stibor Obtains Complete Dismissal Of Complaint Against Internet Company And Its President

Davis Stibor is a small firm that packs a big punch. Davis Stibor was retained to represent America’s fastest growing real estate company against a complaint asserting eleven (11) causes of action that included allegations of fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and sought punitive damages because one of its agents allegedly mismanaged, and then fraudulently transferred the plaintiff’s real property to a company owned by the agent.  The complaint sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages from Davis Stibor’s client.  After receiving the case, Davis Stibor filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of its client seeking to dismiss all eleven causes of action asserted against its client.  After reading the parties’ briefs, and hearing oral arguments by the attorney’s, on February 26, 2014, the District Court Judge granted Davis Stibor’s Motion dismissing the Plaintiff’s entire case against its client.

The dismissal saved our client tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential damages.  Davis|Stibor works feverishly to obtain phenomenal results for its clients.  When our competition is sleeping, we are working and thinking about how to win the case.  And, unlike many of our competitors, Davis|Stibor’s bills don’t shock the conscience.  Our philosophy is simple: your business should use its profits to expand and improve its services, not to pay excessive attorney’s fees.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.

Construction Delay Claim Seminar – September 19, 2013 At The Construction Notebook

On September 19, 2013 at 12:00 p.m., the Construction Notebook will be hosting a Lunch & Learn.  Shan Davis will present a lecture about delay claims.  All attendees will be provide with a free lunch, and the opportunity to further their knowledge regarding construction delay claim.  To RSVP please see the attached flyer:

Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Case Reduced To RubbleYour Title Goes Here

After more than 2 years of litigation, and after discovery had closed, Davis Stibor was retained to represent United Home Health Care, LLC in a trade secret dispute regarding the alleged misappropriation of patients and patient information.  The Plaintiff alleged that Davis|Stibor’s client misappropriated its trade secrets by hiring its former employees, who had access to its patient lists, and then recruiting the patients for a profit.

After discovery closed, one of the co-defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence to prove its damages.  Rather than spending thousands of dollars to file a parallel motion for summary judgment, Davis Stibor held-off pending the court’s ruling on co-defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  After hearing arguments from all parties, including those of Davis|Stibor, the district court granted co-defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Davis Stibor’s strategy worked, a few days later, Davis Stibor secured a settlement on behalf of United Home Health Care, LLC for less than 1% of the Plaintiff’s claimed damages without having to spend thousands of additional dollars filing and arguing a separate motion for summary judgment.

Davis|Stibor provides effective, cost efficient representation to its clients.  Our philosophy is to prevail, but to avoid incurring unnecessary and expensive billable hours.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.