APPEALS

Cardamon v. Dominion Courtyard Villas, et. al. (Dec. 11, 2020, F076760) (unpublished).  In this class action brought on behalf of 4,800 former tenants, Mr. Schallert was retained to seek a writ after the Fresno Superior Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  The tenants were suing their landlord for failing to refund their security deposits as required by Civil Code section 1950.5.   Mr. Schallert wrote and argued the appeal. The appellate court granted the writ and ordered that the class of former tenants be certified.  After the case was remanded, Mr. Schallert guided the case to a very favorable settlement in January 2023.

Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53.  Mr. Schallert was retained to represent the Plaintiff after a Monterey County jury found in favor of her employer, which ran a half-way house.  Ms. Turn had sued her employer for permitting a hostile work environment.  At trial, the jury found that the harassment occurred but accepted Turning Point’s argument that “‘harassment by prisoners is inherently part of the job.’” Id. at 59.  The appellate court found there was no substantial evidence that Turning Point took corrective action and reversed the verdict.  On remand, Plaintiff successfully argued in the trial court that the appellate decision had resolved liability in Plaintiff's favor, and the case settled favorably without the need for a trial.

Mr. Schallert represented the Davis family following a raid by a special unit of the Department.  Mrs. Davis was married to a parolee, and the case involved important issues concerning the rights of those who live under the same roof as a parolee.  Following a four-month trial, the jury had awarded substantial emotional distress damages to Plaintiffs.  The appellate court affirmed the verdict in favor of the Davises, although it did vacate the order for injunctive relief because it was overly broad.

Mr. Schallert was the lead trial counsel for thousands of bond holders (as represented by the six banks who administered the bond payments) in a series of three trials arising out of the collapse of the Executive Life Insurance Company.   Payments on the bonds came from guaranteed investment contracts (GIC) sold by Executive Life.   Mr. Schallert’s clients held $1.8 billion in GICs, and Insurance Commissioner Garamendi sought to deny them equal status with California policyholders such that they would have received nothing from the insurer.   The principal issue in the first two appeals was whether Plaintiffs would receive their pro rata share of the ELIC’s assets, roughly $1.6 billion.

Mr. Schallert was second chair at the trial as an associate at Pillsbury.  The case arose out of a real estate scam that culminated in a check kiting scheme in which hundreds of millions of dollars were circulated through three accounts and which resulted in eight-figure loss for Chicago Title. The first appeal decision held that Plaintiff could NOT sue the bank for fraud or negligence based on its customers’ misrepresentations.  Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1142.  After the writ, Plaintiff proceeded to try its one remaining cause of action dealing with the late return of the kited checks under the “midnight deadline” rules.  In another case of first impression, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Chicago Title in the amount of $16 million ($23 million with interest). Chicago Title Insurance Company v. California Canadian Bank, 1 Cal. App. 4th 798 (1991).