Priscilla Halmon-Daniels v. The Experts, Inc., et al.. Represent the surviving widow of Arthur Lee Daniels, Sr. for wrongful death claims filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arising out of the mass shooting at the Washington, D.C. Naval Yard on September 16, 2013. The defense motion to dismiss was denied and the matter is proceeding towards trial.
Jacqueline “R,” individually, and on behalf of her minor son, “Ronnie” v. District of Columbia et al. Represented the family of an 11 year old boy who was sexually assaulted at an overnight summer camp owned and operated by the District of Columbia. The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and resulted in a verdict in favor of our client in the amount of $550,000. Published reports of this case and the trial may be reviewed in the May 30, 2005 and June 4, 2005 editions of the Washington Post. Media coverage of this case can be viewed here.
Kara “M,” individually, and on behalf of her minor son, “Nico” v. District of Columbia et al. Represented family of a 12 year old boy who was sexually assaulted at an overnight summer camp owned and operated by the District of Columbia. Suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the District and others alleging civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983) and other common law claims. The family accepted a substantial financial settlement. More about the case can be viewed here.
Client v. John Doe. Represented young man who sustained a compound fracture and other significant injuries in an automobile accident caused by a negligent driver. The case was settled pre-litigation for the maximum amount of available insurance.
Jane Doe, a minor v. John Doe. Represented the plaintiff Jane, who was raped at gunpoint in a local park. Jane and John were classmates. In a civil suit, Jane filed suit against John, claiming that evidence discovered after the rape indicated that he had set her up to be sexually assaulted by his friends. Jane also claimed that John’s family had used its wealth and resources to arrange for John to leave the country and avoid suit before expiration of the statute of limitations. After extensive pre-trial litigation and motions, John was located and served with the complaint. His motions to dismiss the litigation were denied. Jane obtained a substantial, confidential settlement shortly after discovery in the case began.
Client v. B. Associates, Inc. Represented a homeowner against an architectural firm alleging that the firm was negligent in supervising the construction and payments to the general contractor for a substantial renovation of a historic Georgetown home. After a six day jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the homeowner in the amount of $160,000.
Brown v. Client Corporation (“CC”) et al. Represented the defendant CC, a non-profit housing services and community advocate organization involved in assisting low and moderate income families with access to credit nationwide. Suit was filed against CC on several legal theories in a verified complaint containing some 217 paragraphs of allegations. The motion to dismiss the complaint filed on CC’s behalf was granted before the initial scheduling conference for the case. Plaintiff’s subsequent motions to reconsider the order of dismissal in favor of CC were denied.
Client Corporation (“CC”) v. Dyer. Represented CC, a prominent business in the field of association management. Bergman alleged that one of its officers and directors, Dyer, had engaged in secret negotiations with a CC client for the purpose of obtaining his own contract with the client. As a result, the client broke its contract with CC and transferred its business to a competing company secretly established by Dyer. CC filed a claim against the client before the American Arbitration Association and was awarded all of its lost income from the contract. CC filed a civil suit against Dyer, and the jury entered a substantial six figure verdict against Dyer for compensatory and punitive damages. CC prevailed in two separate appeals filed by Dyer to overturn the jury’s verdict.
OTC v. Numerous Clients. Represented numerous defendants, all of whom had been partners of a law firm that was sued by its landlord for an alleged breach of its commercial lease agreement. The suit sought hundreds of thousands of dollars from these defendants. Prior to trial, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, thereby dismissing the landlord’s claim. The trial court’s order was successfully defended on appeal, although a portion of the landlord’s claim was reinstated. That claim, however, was dismissed by the trial court as a result of another motion filed on behalf of defendants. No further appeal was filed.
Client v. John and Jane Does. Represented a home buyer in suit against the seller, real estate brokers, and brokerage firm alleging fraud and other misrepresentations for failing to disclose severe flooding problems with the property at the time of sale. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the litigation were denied, and Client accepted a substantial settlement from all defendants prior to trial.
Capitol Hill Restoration Society (“CHRS” and North Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association (“NLPNA”) . For several years, two neighborhood associations and dozens of residents near the 1300 block of Constitution Avenue, N.E. fought a legal and economic battle with Trant Liquors. CHRS, NLPNA and the neighbors claimed that Trant destroyed the peace, order and quiet of their neighborhood by, among other things, selling fortified alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons, by providing drug paraphernalia to customers, and by allowing its parking lot and immediate surrounds to be used for drug dealing and other illegal activities. Despite such allegations and proof, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for the District of Columbia renewed Trant’s license. Thereafter, Doug was engaged to represent the citizens in appeals to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Two appeals to the Court of Appeals were successful. Trant lost its license, closed, and the property was converted to housing.
Logan Circle Citizens’ Association. Represented the Association in its effort to cause revocation of a license by held by F&W Market to sell beer and wine. The Association claimed that the establishment destroyed its peace, order and quiet by harboring drug traffickers within the establishment. Undercover police officers testified to numerous drug purchases inside the establishment in front of the store’s owners. After several days of hearings, the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board revoked F&W Market’s license.
Dupont Circle Citizens’ Association. Represented the Association in several highly contested neighborhood battles involving bars and restaurants holding alcoholic beverage licenses. Efforts to reduce the negative impact of these on residential properties, and in extending the scope of an area-wide moratorium on new licensed establishments, were successful. Kalorama Citizens’ Association. Represented the Association in its effort to establish a moratorium on the issuance of new alcoholic beverage licenses in the popular Adams Morgan area of the District of Columbia. The Association’s purpose in seeking the moratorium was to stem the growth of restaurants and bars in favor of creating opportunities for other neighborhood businesses to develop and thrive. The Association prevailed after several days of contested hearings before the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Lamond-Riggs Neighborhood Association (“LRNA”). Represented the Association in its efforts to cause revocation of alcoholic beverage licenses to a number of establishments following an incident where a D.C. police officer was gunned-down in his vehicle outside a nightclub. The Association alleged that these establishments contributed to the drug-trade and violence in the neighborhood. The Association was successful in its efforts following numerous hearings before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Condominium Association Residents v. Leisureworld. Senior citizen residents of this condominium association filed suit alleging that portions of the Association’s land were taken as a result of the defendants’ development of a neighboring condominium building. Residents of the Association alleged that their properties had lost value and important “green space,” and that critical access to their homes was being threatened by the development scheme. Settlement was reached compensating the Association and guaranteeing that access by its members to their homes would not be obstructed.