A successful outcome

The definition of a successful outcome in law is subjective. For some, success means winning at trial. For others, success means achieving a favorable settlement. And still for others, a successful legal outcome is simply hearing you're right and they're wrong. With this in mind, we strive to achieve our clients' definition of a successful outcome.  Below is a summary of some of our clients' successful outcomes. 

Case Dismiss. 2020 CA 000182 B

  • A property owner filed a complaint for breach of contract against our client, a contractor, and our client's construction company. The purported contract, however, was solely between the property owner and our client's company. For this reason, we moved to dismiss our client from the lawsuit. Agreeing with our legal arguments, the Court granted our motion, dismissing our client form the case.  Read Decision

Summary Judgment. 2018 CA 03355 B (D.C.)

  • A property owner sued our client, a contractor, and our client's construction company. In his 26-page pleading, the property asserted numerous claims: (1) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Good faith and Fair Dealing; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Consumer-Protection Violations; an d(5) Negligent Misrepresentation. After meticulously investigating and developing the case, we moved for summary judgment as to all claims. Agreeing with our legal arguments, the Court granted our summary-judgment, awarding judgment in our clients factor on all counts. Read Decision

Summary Judgment. 2018 CA 004567 B (D.C.)

  • We sued several contractors on behalf of a homeowner. In violation of the District's regulations and statutes, the contractors solicited the our client by using an illegal contract and accepted more than $50,000 from the homeowner without a contractor's licensed. The court granted our summary-judgment motion,ordering the contractors to return the homeowner's money and to pay our client's attorney's fees.

 

Vacate Judgment. 2016 CA 007864 B (D.C.)

  • An airline company retained our firm to vacate a nearly six-figure judgment that had been entered against it. After meticulously investing the facts and developing a defense, we moved to vacate the judgment. Not withstanding the opposing counsel's vigorous opposition, the Court agreed with our legal arguments, vacating the judgment and denying the opposing party's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. Read Order.

Summary Judgment. 2016 CA 009188 B (D.C.)

  • A homeowner sued several defendants, including our client, a real estate agent, for civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and failure to disclose defects with the home plaintiff purchased.  During discovery, the homeowner admitted that she did not have any basis to claim that our client knew about any of the alleged defects.  The Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims against our client and allowing her to forgo trial.  

Settlement.  1:13-cv-00725 (D.C. Federal Court)

  • Two former employees sued our client, a D.C. restaurant owner, for unpaid overtime wages and attorney’s fees.  The client delayed in retaining counsel, and as a result, the court entered a judgment against him and his business for over $112,000.  He then retained us, and we negotiated a favorable settlement far below the judgment. 

 

Case Dismissed.  2016 CA 002320 B (D.C.)

  • A former employee sued our client, a D.C. construction company, for unpaid wages for work he performed on a school construction contract with the District of Columbia.  We convinced the Plaintiff to dismiss his case because it was subject to the Davis Bacon Act that requires employees to first file an administrative claim, which the Plaintiff had not done.

Case Dismissed.  2014 CA 006102 B (D.C.)

  • Plaintiffs, commercial tenants, sued our client, the owners of a building in the District, for breach of a lease agreement.  We conducted deep searches on the Plaintiffs and discovered that they had recently filed bankruptcy.  On their bankruptcy petitions, we learned that they had failed to disclose their interest in the very lease which formed the basis of their lawsuit against our clients.  Because the plaintiffs failed to disclose their interest in the lease to the bankruptcy court, they were judicially estopped from suing from breach of the lease. We raised this issue with counsel, who then agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. 

Judgment.  2014 CA 005417 B  (D.C.) 

  • Plaintiff, an elderly District resident, paid a contractor thousands to renovate her home.  The contractor took the money, did little if any work, and then abandoned the project.  We sued the contractor on behalf of the homeowner.  After twelve unsuccessful attempts to locate and serve the contractor (who was clearly evading service), we moved the court for an order allowing us to serve the conractor by posting. Once we served the contractor, we moved for judgment.  The court granted our motion for judgment and awarded the homeowner treble damages (triple the actual damages) and other damages in the amount of $17,000. 

 

Case Dismissed.  2014 CA 003681 C (D.C.)

 

  • Plaintiff, a large insurance company, sued our client, a construction company, alleging negligent construction and seeking monetary damages.  We mounted a vigorous defense.  Later, the plaintiff dismissed its entire case with prejudice.  Our client paid nothing.     

 

Case Dismissed.  2014 CA 007428 R(RP) (D.C.)

 

  • Plaintiff, a development company, sued our client, a construction company, alleging failure to pay a construction loan.  We researched the development company and discovered that its corporate charter had been cancelled years ago.  As such, we moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that due to the cancellation of its corporate charter, the development company lost its power to sue.  The court agreed and dismissed the complaint.   

Settlement. 2009 CA 007753 R(RP) (D.C.)

 

  • Our client sued his former lawyer, alleging that the lawyer had fraudulently transferred the deed to our client's home into the name of the lawyer's secretary.  This case endure for more than four years of heavy litigation, involving parties from California to Washington, D.C., private investigations, and foresenic accounting audits. In the end, all parties agreed that the evidenced demonstrated that our client was the rightful owner of the property. 

 

 

Settlement.  2014 CA 003047 B (D.C.)

 

  • Our client sued a mortgage broker, alleging, violation of the D.C. Mortgage Lender and Broker Act.  After building a strong case based on documentary evidence, the mortgage broker agreed to a monetary settlement, which included a refund to our client of thousands of dollars in fees and commissions.

 

Reversal.  13 - CV - 546 (D.C. Court of Appeals)

 

  • A law firm sued our client, a biotechnology entrepreneur,  seeking $1.7 million in legal fees.  We filed a motion to compel the law firm to submit the fee dispute to binding arbitration as mandated by the court's rules.  After the trial court denied our motion, we appealed to the District's highest court.  The District's highest court reversed the lower court and ruled, for the first time, that mandatory arbitration between a lawyer and client over a fee dispute is constitutional. 

Settlement.  2013 CA 005926 B (D.C.)

 

  • The defendant, sued our client, a business owner, alleging breach of a contract.  We mounted a vigorous defense on our client's behalf and were prepared to prove that our client was not liable to the plaintiff. Before trial, however, the parties agreed to a settlement that was favorable to our client. 

 

Case Dismissed. 2014 CA 001459 B (D.C.) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, alleging consumer protection violations. We moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff was not a consumer as defined by D.C. law. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff's case. ​

  •  

Mitigated Damages. 2013 SC3 000449 (D.C.) 

 

  • ​The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, for breach of contract. At trial, we persuaded the court that the parties had not agreed on the material terms of the contract; therefore, no enforceable contract existed. The plaintiff sought thousands in damages but was awarded virtually nothing. 

 

Stay Granted. 2013 CA 000884 B (D.C. Court of Appeals) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a biotechnology entrepreneur, alleging breach of contract and damages of $1,700,000.  After the court denied our motion to compel arbitration, we appealed to and obtained a stay (rarely granted) from the District’s highest court, which halted the litigation and prevented the disclosure of our client's confidential information. 

 

Judgment. 381465V (MD)

 

  • Our client sued a contractor for breach of contract. The contractor retained experienced and savvy counsel. Through vigorous litigation and finally negotiations with opposing counsel, the parties reached a settlement.  When the contractor failed to uphold his part of the bargain, we moved for and were awarded a judgment against the contractor.   

 

Case Dismissed. 2013 CA 00293 B (D.C.) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, alleging that he was stabbed while attending our client's annual party. We persuaded the court that the plaintiff's unfortunate injuries were not foreseeable; therefore, our client was not liable.  The court agreed and dismissed the defendant's case. 

 

Judgment. 2011 CA 003938 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, was duped by a contractor, who took the client's money and ran.  In court, we proved that the contractor had used a fake license and other forged documents to defraud our client. We obtained not only a judgment against the contractor but also an award of treble damages (triple the actual damages) for our client.  

 

Dismissal. 2013 CA 001325 B (D.C.) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, alleging breach of contract.  We countersued and moved to dismiss the plaintiff's case, arguing that the plaintiff was not properly licensed to transact business in the District.  As such, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss its case. Our client paid nothing.

Summary Judgment. 2010 CA 007636 B (D.C.)  

 

  • The plaintiff, sued our client, a small business owner, alleging consumer protection violations. In court, we persuaded the court that the plaintiff's consumer protection claims were barred by the statute of limitations. 

 

Settlement. 2012 LTB 002047 (D.C.) 

 

  • A landlord sued his tenant, alleging that the tenant maintained the apartment as a drug haven. The tenant was represented by savvy and experienced counsel, who moved for summary judgment. The landlord retained our firm to oppose the tenant's summary-judgment motion. We successfully opposed the motion, which resulted in a favorable settlement for the landlord.  

 

Judgment. 2011 CA 002923 B (D.C.) ​ 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner. The plaintiff alleged that our client ruined her home and stole her valuable possessions.  The plaintiff was represented by a big D.C. law firm. We persuaded the court that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  

 

Settlement. 050200419912011 (MD) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, alleging that our client failed to complete home improvements. Through cordial negotiations, all parties agreed to a reasonable settlement and dismissal of the case. 

  •  

Dismissal Denied. 2012 CA 008521 B (D.C.) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, the plaintiff’s former employee, alleging misappropriation of funds. The plaintiff was represented by a big D.C. law firm. We countersued the plaintiff.  The plaintiff moved to dismiss our counterclaim.  We persuaded the court, however, that our client had stated plausible claims under D.C. law, which allowed our client's case to move forward.  

 

Settlement. 2010 CA 000095 R(RP) (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued a mortgage broker, alleging predatory lending. Although the broker had gone out of business, we assisted our client in obtaining a favorable confidential settlement. 

 

Summary Judgment. 09-02331 (D.C. Federal Court) 

 

  • ​The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, alleging breach of a contract. We persuaded the federal court that the plaintiff's claims were all barred by the legal doctrine of res judicata. That is, the plaintiff had already litigated the same case against our client in state court.

 

Verdict 2007 CA 006721 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued a contractor for breach contract.  The contractor was represented by experienced and savvy counsel. We prevailed at trial and obtained an award of treble damages (triple the actual damages).

 

Settlement. 1:08-cv-02232 (D.C. Federal Court) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued a large bank, alleging predatory lending. After building a strong case through heavy litigation, the parties agreed to a favorable confidential settlement. 

 

Settlement. 312489-V (MD) 

 

  • The plaintiff, a large commercial landlord, sued our client, a small business owner, alleging breach of a commercial lease. The landlord was represented by experienced and savvy counsel. We mounted a strong defense, arguing that the landlord's conduct during the lease term changed the material terms of the lease. Through heavy litigation and later negotiations, the landlord agreed to dismiss its case. Our client paid nothing.  

 

Judgment. CAL 08-144488 (MD)  

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued the defendant, a tenant renting our client’s home, to retake the property.  The defendant refused to leave and waged a year-long legal war to remain in the home, claiming an entitlement to the home while refusing to pay rent. Through plain old, dogged persistence, we finally convinced the court that the defendant had no legal entitlement to the property and that our client was entitled to immediate possession. Days later, with the police onsite, our client took back the property. 

 

Settlement. 1:08cv510 (D.C. Federal Court)

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued a large bank, alleging predatory lending. Our firm was a member of the legal team, which included the AARP and other excellent legal counsel that built a strong case against the lender. The case ended with a favorable confidential settlement for our client.  

 

Dismissal. 2007 SC3 068192 (D.C.) 

 

  • A bank sued our client for breach of contract. The bank was represented by experienced and savvy counsel. While preparing for trial, we discovered that the bank would not be able to prove that our client owed the debt.  As such, the bank dismissed its case. Our client paid nothing.

 

Lift Stay Denied. 08-10170  (US Bankr. Ct.  MD)

 

  • A bank filed a motion to proceed with a foreclosure sale of our client's home. We fought back against the bank in court, demonstrating that the bank's $20,000 lien was more than secured by the more than $300,000 of equity in our client's home. As such, the federal court enjoined the sale of our client’s home, which preserved our client's equity and allowed her to sell her home a full market value.  

Settlement before litigation

 

  • An attorney representing a debt collector harassed our client at work by leaving a voice mail message, disclosing that our client owed a debt.  We issued a strongly worded demand letter to the attorney, outlining the relevant law and demonstrating how the attorney's voice mail message violated federal law. We demanded that the attorney pay $1,000 (for the one voice mail) to our client plus attorney's fees or face a lawsuit.  The client received the check a few days later.       

 

Dismissal. 2008 CA 008342 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our clients, homeowners, were sued by a construction company. The company was represented by experienced and savvy counsel. We mounted a strong defense and countersued the company. By building a strong case through heavy litigation and later negotiations, the company agreed to dismiss its complaint. Our clients paid nothing.  

 

Mitigated Damages.  060200144222006 (MD) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client for breach of contract. The plaintiff hoped for a fast settlement.  Our client, however, refused to settle and went to trial.  At trial, we proved that, although the plaintiff suffered losses, our client was not liable damages sought.  And although the court found in plaintiff's favor, it awarded virtually nothing.  

 

Judgment. 2008 CA 000402 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued a contractor, alleging that the contractor failed to complete home improvements. While researching the contractor, we discovered that the contractor was not licensed.  As such, under D.C. law, our client was entitled to a full refund. Based on this theory, the court awarded judgment for our client.

 

Judgment. 2008 SC3 004369 (D.C.) 

 

  • The plaintiff sued our client, a small business owner, for property damage. At trial, we persuaded the court that, although the plaintiff's property was damaged, our client was not liable for those damages. The court agreed and awarded no damages to the plaintiff.  

 

Judgment. 2005 CA 008449 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, an entrepreneur, sued the defendant, the owner of a day spa, alleging breach of contract. The defendant failed to file a timely answer to our complaint.  As such, the court awarded judgment for our client. 

 

Settlement. 2007 CA 001930 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued a contractor, alleging breach of a home improvement contract. The contractor was represented by experienced and savvy counsel. We mounted a strong case, demonstrating a strong likelihood of success on the merits for our client. Through cordial negotiations, the defendant agreed to a favorable settlement. 

 

Specific Performance. 2007 CA3 000080 B (D.C.) 

 

  • The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) seized our client's car after a third party falsely claimed ownership of the car.  Despite our client's proof of ownership of the car, the MPD would not release it.  We sued the District, seeking to compel the release of the car. Luckily, a fellow law school classmate was the attorney for the District. We quickly resolved the issue, and our client had his car back in short order.  

 

Judgment. 2007 CA 000495 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued the defendant, a contractor, for improper installation of an HVAC unit. The contractor failed to file a timely answer to our complaint.  As such, the court entered a judgment for our client. 

 

Verdict. CAL 05-07993 (MD) 

 

Our client fell in the defendant's grocery store and suffered injuries. At binding arbitration, we proved that the defendant's negligence caused our client's injuries.  The arbitrator agreed and found for our client. 

 

Settlement. 2007 CA 002756 C (D.C.)  

 

  • A bank sued our client for defaulting on a six-figure, student loan. By demonstrating that our client faced a hardship and through cordial negotiations with a fair-minded opposing counsel, the bank agreed to restructure the loan on terms favorable to our client.  

 

Judgment. 2005 CA 001689 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our client, a homeowner, sued his contractor for failing to complete home improvements.  After heavy litigation, our client prevailed and was awarded judgment. 

 

Verdict. CAL 05-09731 (MD) 

 

  • Our client suffered injuries in a car accident. Later, she sued the driver of the car.  Our client retained us later in the case to represent her at trial.  At trial, the jury found in our clients favor.

 

Settlement 2005 CA 008286 B (D.C.) 

 

  • Our clients, homeowners, sued a construction company for damaging their home. In preparing for trial, we built a strong case based on expert opinions that the construction company had caused the damage to our clients' home. Later, the parties reached a favorable settlement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 700, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910

Copyright 2020  Veda Law

 

 

The material presented on this site is included with the understanding and agreement

that Veda Law is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional service.  Read full disclaimer.