In July, 2020, Mitch Motu obtained a ruling from the Central District Court granting a Motion to Dismiss in favor of U.S. Bank in a civil discrimination action.Continue Reading
In March, 2020, following a jury trial in San Bernardino County Superior Court, Ben Trachtman and Mitch Motu obtained a defense verdict for U.S. Bank in a premises liability matter.Continue Reading
In 2020, Ben Trachtman was selected by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to serve as an Arbitrator for its Construction Panel. Ben is very excited to partner with AAA and is looking forward to serving as a Panelist for this preeminent Alternate Dispute Resolution...Continue Reading
In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s ruling that granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Target Corporation in a premises liability matter.Continue Reading
In March of 2019, following a Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the Orange County Superior Court, Trachtman & Trachtman obtained a Judgment in favor of Target Corporation in a premises liability matter. Continue Reading
In September 2016, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (Division 3) affirmed the Orange County Superior Court Ruling that granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Target Corporation in a wrongful death case. Continue Reading
In June of 2016 following a Jury Trial in Orange County Superior Court, Trachtman & Trachtman obtained a defense verdict for Target Corporation in a premises liability matter. Continue Reading
In October of 2015, following a Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the Orange County Superior Court, Trachtman & Trachtman obtained a Judgment in favor of Target Corporation in a premises liability matter. Continue Reading
In August, 2015, Target named Ben Trachtman as its "Bullseye Barrister" for the 2nd Quarter, 2015. The "Bullseye Barrister" is a coveted honor among Target's nationwide panel of hundreds of attorneys and is bestowed on one attorney in each calendar quarter who best demonstrates trial prowess and...Continue Reading
In July of 2015 Target was awarded almost $4,000 in costs against Plaintiff after a Jury Trial in the United States District Court. Before Trial, Plaintiff had rejected a good faith CCP §998 settlement offer made by Target. After Trial, the Jury’s award to Plaintiff was nominal and constituted a small fraction of the amount that Target had offered to Plaintiff in its 998. This resulted in a monetary Judgment against Plaintiff. Continue Reading
