Plaintiffs, a salesman and an office manager, were fired by their employer in 1981. They filed actions for wrongful termination. After three years of litigation the case was resolved with each plaintiff receiving $600,000.00 settlement.

Color Spot sued Maniglia for $45,000.00 due for breach of contract on the sale of trees located in south San Jose on property leased from Pacific Gas & Electric. Maniglia filed a cross-complaint against Color Spot claiming breach of the same contract, contending Color Spot suffered no damages and that Maniglia sustained damages for Color Spot’s breach of the contract and lost profits. On the day of trial, Maniglia offered to settle for mutual dismissals. Color Spot rejected the offer and demanded to proceed through jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded “0" to Color Spot and $65,000.00 to Maniglia on the cross-complaint. Maniglia also recovered an additional $27,500.00 from Sequoia Insurance for failing to respond to Maniglia’s tender of defense, for a total recovery of $87,500.00 After the verdict, Color Spot retained plaintiff’s counsel, Fred W. Gerbino, Jr., to perform legal services for Color Spot.

Plaintiff, a small finance company purchased a used concrete pumping truck from defendant for $47,314.00. Plaintiff was unable to register the truck because Orix did not properly clear title when it repossessed the truck. Plaintiff sued Orix for breach of contract for failure to provide free and clear title and demanded return of the $47,314.00. Orix refused to return the money claiming it never promised to provide clear title and that it was plaintiff’s problem. On the day of trial, Orix offered $70,000.00. Plaintiff rejected the offer and made a demand for $100,000.00. After a civil jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $380,000.00 including $200,000.00 in punitive damages against Orix. The judgment on the verdict was reduced to $80,000.00 plus the $200,000.00 to avoid double recovery on the fraud claims. The case settled for $170,000.00 cash payment to plaintiff, with plaintiff keeping the concrete pumping truck.

A Cal Door employee filed a workers comp claim for permanent disability as a result of an alleged back injury at work. Cal Door provided Nationwide with photographs of the employee playing soccer in full stride during the same time the employee was claiming permanent disability. Nationwide failed to file the evidence in time. The workers comp judge excluded the evidence from trial. The employee received an award for permanent disability and vocational rehabilitation that caused Cal Door’s workers comp insurance rates to increase over the next three years. Cal Door had approximately 300 hundred employees at the time of the claim. On advice from Cal Door’s insurance agent, it let the comp policy lapse for nonpayment and obtained a new comp carrier. Nationwide sued Cal Door for balance due for premiums on the policy. Cal Door offered to release all claims against Nationwide for bad faith if Nationwide dismissed the suit. Nationwide rejected that offer. Cal Door filed a Cross-Complaint against Nationwide. After a two week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cal Door and awarded Cal Door attorney’s fees and costs which exceeded the balance due on the policy by a multiple of approximately ten times.

Plaintiff sued Avalon Bay for breach of contract for money due on the sale of kitchen cabinet doors delivered and installed in two luxury apartment complexes in southern California. Defendant claimed that the credit application with plaintiff was not part of the contract with plaintiff. The credit application had a provision for recovery of attorney’s fees if legal action was required to collect payment. Cal Door offered to settle for $100,000.00 Defendant offered $70,00.00 which was rejected. After a one and a half week civil jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cal Door for $87,156.00. The court awarded the plaintiff late charges of 2% per month and $130,000.00M in attorneys fees for a total judgment of $277,715.00 Defendant paid in full.

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of oral contract, Marvin v. Marvin claims and breach of fiduciary duty during their ten year nonmarital cohabitation. Plaintiff claimed that the money she gave Defendant was a loan and defendant promised to repay her the money. Defendant claimed the money was a gift. During the course of a two week jury trial, plaintiff entered evidence that defendant concealed his true net worth from plaintiff. Plaintiff also introduced evidence that defendant concealed other financial information from her during the course of their nonmarital relationship. Defendant offered $10,000.00 to plaintiff at the mandatory settlement conference and again on the day of trial. After a two week civil jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $266,107.00 for breach of contract and an additional $20,000.00 for breach of fiduciary duty for a total verdict of $286,107.00 The jury also found defendant guilty of malice, fraud and oppression but did not award any additional damages in the second phase of the trial. The case settled with defendant paying $200,000.00 to plaintiff.

The trial court, in a prosecution for drawing a weapon in a threatening manner [Penal Code Section 417 (a)(2)] refused to give a requested instruction regarding the defense of others. Defendant was found guilty. Defendant appealed. Fred W. Gerbino, Jr. represented the defendant at trial and appeal. The appellate department of the Superior Court reversed the conviction, holding it was error to have failed to give the requested defense instruction. Upon the application by defendant’s counsel, the California Supreme Court issued an order to publish the opinion as a precedent setting case throughout the State of California.

Defendant was charged with three counts of issuing checks on insufficient funds with intent to defraud (Penal Code Section 476a). At trial the victim testified that he was a supplier for the defendant’s business and that he and defendant had an understanding that he would provide her with supplies and she would pay with a check that both knew was not covered by sufficient funds. She would sell her product at shows on the weekend and deposit the proceeds from the weekend sales into her account. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, counsel for defendant, Fred W. Gerbino, Jr., brought a motion to dismiss all counts pursuant to Penal Code Section 1118.1, arguing that defendant did not have the intent to defraud the supplier because the checks were post dated and that she had honestly hoped the sales would cover the checks after the shows. The trial court judge granted defendant’s motion as to one count. Defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that defendant’s motion should have been granted as to all three counts and reversed the conviction on insufficiency of the evidence. All charges were dismissed.

Defendant was charged with multiple felonies for cultivating marijuana with intent to sell, possession for sale and possession of firearms. Police executed a search warrant on defendant’s residence where the grow operation was set up. Counsel for defendant, Fred W. Gerbino, Jr., confirmed the affidavit in support of the search warrant was based on the fact that police stated the defendant’s utility bill was excessive, suspicious and consistent with a marijuana grow operation. Counsel for defendant retained a consultant to do a study on surrounding properties to establish an average of kilowatt use per square foot. The consultant produced records and a declaration which confirmed defendant’s utility bills were within the normal range of his neighbors and were not excessive. Defendant’s counsel brought a motion to strike the search warrant on Constitutional grounds for illegal search and seizure and false affidavit in support of the search warrant. Before the motion to strike the search warrant was held, prosecutors dismissed all of the felony charges and allowed defendant to complete a minimal drug diversion class which resulted in no conviction for any charge. The consequence of the potential felony conviction was severe, because defendant’s business is a large government contractor. The felony convictions would cause defendant to lose his license to contract with the government and destroy his business.

Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine while in possession of firearms, discharge of a firearm while in possession of cocain and other serious felonies. Counsel for defendant, Fred W. Gerbino, Jr., retained a psychologist to evaluate defendant for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder relating to his tour of duty in the military. Defendant’s counsel also retained an expert consultant who was a retired probation officer to do a report and recommendation based upon the findings of the psychologist. Upon review of the report from the psychologist and probation officer, the District Attorney and the court agreed to dismiss all felony charges on the condition that defendant attend and complete a drug diversion course. All charges were dismissed.

Represented shopping center owner where the County of San Mateo sued to take the property through condemnation. On a motion for summary judgement, the County’s case was dismissed on technical legal grounds. Landowner kept the property and recovered all of his attorney’s fees and costs.

Recovered $330,000.00 for a woman in a sexual harassment case against her boss.

Recovered more than $500,000.00 settlement for teen victim of a molestation.

Recovered $315,000.00 in a case where the injured woman was charged by a large dog off leash. No physical contact between the dog and the injured person.

Recovered many millions of dollars in personal injury, premises liability and dog bite cases.

Represented individuals in more than 500 felony and misdemeanor cases including more than 300 DUI cases.

Represented numerous contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers in construction defect litigation.

Represented numerous police officers for on the job injuries against a third person with numerous recoveries of $100,000.00 or more in a addition to workers comp payments.

Recovered $1.75 million dollars for injuries arising from a head on collision on Highway 4 near Arnold, California. Before filing a lawsuit and one year of litigation, the defendant’s insurance company said they would pay no more than $500,000.00

Recovered substantial six figure settlement from commercial real estate broker and brokerage firm for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence arising from failure to advise lessee of industrial building about his deadline to renew five year lease option at 50% of the present fair market value. Case settled at the Mandatory Settlement Conference the week before jury trial.

Represented defendant in a Marvin v. Marvin case. Plaintiff sued defendant for two million dollars alleging Marvin claims during their seven year nonmarital cohabitation. After two years of litigation, the case settled at Mandatory Settlement Conference for $45,000.00, less than the cost of going to trial.

Recovered six figure settlement from national retail store for plaintiff employee who was wrongfully accused for stealing from his employer.