General Civil

Our attorneys are accomplished in all types of general civil litigation, including civil rights complaints against government entities. We have a long record of winning cases and routinely reach prompt resolution of disputes by aggressively and judiciously preparing cases for trial. While it is true that at least 90 percent of civil cases settle before trial, fastidious preparation and a willingness to go to trial consistently maximize our settlement results. Fueled by our dedication to deliver only highest level of excellence in courtroom advocacy, we routinely achieve the results our clients expect when they hire us.

McManis Faulkner also employs the latest technology in case management and presentation software to ensure our clients receive the most cost-effective and high-impact service possible. Whether in state or federal court, before an administrative agency or pursuing alternative dispute resolution via mediation or arbitration, our experienced and focused trial team repeatedly outmaneuvers larger, less flexible, and more expensive firms.


Case Studies

General Civil Case Studies

McManis Faulkner Obtains Ninth Circuit Ruling

Result:
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned District Court decision.

Client:
Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford graduate student from Malaysia

Overview:

McManis Faulkner successfully represented Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford graduate student, who found herself inexplicably on the No-Fly List. Ibrahim was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in 2005 before being allowed to fly to her native Malaysia for an academic conference. She was not allowed to return to the U.S. due to her ‘No-Fly’ List status.

Filing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, government lawyers argued that with the passage of 49 USC Section 46110 by Congress, federal judges had no jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA). As such, only appellate courts have jurisdiction over such cases, making them impossible to litigate because appellate courts cannot take evidence and had no lower court decision – complete with evidence – to review and reconsider.

In a decided victory, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to allow federal trial judges to investigate the make-up of the ‘No-Fly’ List. The court held that the Terrorist Screening Center, the agency that compiles the list, is part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is not listed in 49 USC Section 46110.

McManis Faulkner then filed a suit in U.S. District Court to have Ibrahim's name removed; however, Judge William Alsup dismissed the suit. He ruled that Ibrahim had no constitutional rights at stake because she was a foreigner who had left the U.S. voluntarily.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Court decision, ruling that Ibrahim had significant U.S. connections - she had spent four years as a graduate student at Stanford, traveled abroad only to present her research at a Stanford-sponsored conference, and would have returned for academic and personal visits if the government hadn't barred her.




Taxpayer Action

Result:
Favorable result for client.

Client:
Ted Smith, Resident and Taxpayer of City of San Jose

Overview:

Smith’s taxpayer action challenged the City’s prohibition on an individual’s right to make a contribution during the last 17 days before a municipal election or the last seven days before a special election (“the blackout periods”), as an unconstitutional ban on the right to engage in political expression and an individual’s freedom of association.  Although the City claimed it had a legitimate government interest in promoting transparency, no such blackout period exists during this critical time of an election under federal or California state law, or under the laws of any other major City in California.  Rather, these governing bodies require that such “late” contributions are reported by a candidate within 24 hours, and instantly electronically posted on the web for transparency.  After a bench trial, the Honorable James Kleinberg ruled in Smith’s favor, holding that the blackout periods do not comport with the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and political expression.




Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition

Result:
Obtained settlement agreement from former employees and a competitor to refrain from soliciting customers or employees of client.

Client:
Large Pharmaceutical Supplier

Overview:

A high-level local employee of an out-of-state pharmaceutical supplier left the company to start a competing business in California. In conjunction with an arbitration proceeding in another state, McManis Faulkner successfully obtained the pre-litigation agreement of the former employee and competing business to cease and refrain from soliciting customers and employees of the company.




Wrongful Arrest

Result:
Negotiated a $300,000 settlement.

Client:
High-level Executive

Overview:

McManis Faulkner represented a high-level executive in a civil suit for wrongful arrest based on a shoddy investigation and outrageous conduct by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office. The executive retained McManis Faulkner after being arrested for dental insurance fraud, handcuffed and taken from her workplace, and later cleared of a crime she did not commit. The client suffered the shock and humiliation of her arrest in front of her co-workers and the severe emotional distress of being imprisoned for more than eight hours, as well as a bill for legal services to clear her name that exceeded $10,000. The client received $300,000 in the settlement.




Elder Abuse and Fraud

Result:
A $1 million settlement after writ of attachment.

Client:
Elderly Couple

Overview:

An elderly couple was swindled by a financial planner and his controlled companies. McManis Faulkner moved swiftly to obtain a writ attaching all the defendants’ real property and other assets, leading to a prompt settlement secured by real property for return of all of the clients’ money, plus interest and attorney’s fees, and for entry of judgment against the defendants if they failed to perform. Obtaining an immediate temporary protective order and writ of attachment freezing all of the defendants’ assets saved a large amount of attorney’s fees and the emotional toll a trial would have had on the 90 year-old clients.