Commercial Litigation for What's Actually at Stake

Commercial litigation typically takes one to three years from filing to resolution, though complex cases can take longer. The actual timeline depends on the complexity of the matter, the volume of discovery, the court's schedule, the parties' willingness to settle, and whether motion practice resolves claims before trial. Many commercial cases settle during or after the discovery phase, which can shorten the timeline significantly. We work with clients early in the engagement to project a realistic timeline and milestones so the case can be managed alongside the business's other priorities.

The firm represents real estate developers, hospitality operators, hotel and resort owners, property managers, commercial landlords, and real estate investors in commercial litigation, premises liability defense, contract disputes, and appellate matters. Hospitality industry work includes defense of commercial disputes involving hotels, resorts, restaurants, and entertainment venues, with multiple successful defense jury verdicts in this area. Real estate litigation covers commercial leasing disputes, property transaction disputes, construction-related claims, and appellate matters in federal circuit courts including the Eleventh Circuit. The firm's southeastern presence in Atlanta provides direct support for clients in the Eleventh Circuit region.

The firm approaches mediation as a structured opportunity to resolve a matter at a favorable stage rather than as a procedural formality. Pre-mediation work includes evaluation of the matter's strengths and exposure, identification of decision-makers and their incentives, preparation of mediation statements and supporting materials, and selection of mediators with relevant subject matter expertise and credibility with both sides. The firm has resolved commercial disputes through mediation including a Massachusetts commercial dispute where mediation produced a resolution that avoided extended litigation. Mediation strategy is coordinated with broader litigation strategy, recognizing that productive mediation often requires that both parties have reasonable visibility into their likely litigation outcomes.

The firm represents financial services defendants in securities actions and complex commercial disputes at trial and on appeal. The practice covers state securities act claims, federal securities defense, contract and breach claims between financial counterparties, and appellate work in federal circuit courts handling significant financial services questions. The firm has secured affirmances in the Second Circuit in financial services securities matters, drawing on the firm's appellate practice and substantive trial preparation. Cases often involve coordination with in-house counsel, prior outside counsel, and aligned defendants in industry-wide matters.

Manufacturing clients regularly face product liability claims across multiple states with divergent comparative fault rules, contribution frameworks, and damages caps. The firm's defense practice navigates these frameworks through coordinated multi-jurisdictional strategy, including Pennsylvania Fair Share Act apportionment, Texas Chapter 33 designation of responsible third parties, and modified comparative negligence regimes across the Mountain West, Southeast, and Midwest. The firm has secured defense jury verdicts in Utah personal injury actions, defended manufacturers under Pennsylvania's 60-percent Fair Share Act threshold, and affirmed defense verdicts in manufacturing antitrust matters. Pre-litigation work supports manufacturers in evaluating exposure across states with different liability frameworks.

Technology companies regularly face commercial litigation that intersects with speech, publishing, and platform activity, where anti-SLAPP statutes create distinct procedural defenses. The firm has prevailed on New York anti-SLAPP motions for technology defendants under the 2020 anti-SLAPP framework, drawing on the burden-shifting analysis and fee-shifting provisions of the updated statute. Anti-SLAPP work for technology clients includes evaluation of state-by-state statutes (the firm's licensure footprint includes multiple states with anti-SLAPP frameworks), motion practice within statutory deadlines, and appellate work on the interlocutory and dispositive questions that frequently arise. The firm coordinates anti-SLAPP defense with broader commercial litigation strategy and any aligned defendants in coordinated actions.

The firm represents parties in arbitration proceedings, arbitration award confirmation, and challenges to arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act and state arbitration frameworks. Arbitration work has included defense of consumer protection actions through formal arbitration proceedings, including a matter resolved through a Connecticut consumer protection arbitration award. The firm handles arbitration matters under institutional rules including the American Arbitration Association and JAMS, and supports clients in arbitration provision enforcement, arbitration award confirmation in federal and state courts, and challenges to arbitration awards on grounds permitted under the FAA. Arbitration strategy is coordinated with the firm's commercial litigation practice to ensure consistency across forums.

These are three different forums for resolving disputes. Litigation takes place in court before a judge or jury, follows formal procedural rules, and produces a binding judgment that can be appealed. Arbitration is a private process where a neutral arbitrator or panel hears the case and issues a binding award, with very limited appeal rights. Mediation is a facilitated negotiation where a neutral mediator helps the parties reach a voluntary settlement; the mediator has no authority to impose a decision. Litigation and arbitration are adjudicative; mediation is consensual. Many commercial disputes use mediation during litigation to attempt resolution before incurring trial costs.

Trial preparation begins early in a matter's life cycle and intensifies in the months leading up to trial. The firm's approach involves a small team of trial attorneys supported by associate-level brief writers, paralegals managing exhibits and witnesses, and eDiscovery specialists handling deposition and document use at trial. Trial preparation includes detailed exhibit and witness preparation, focus groups and mock trials for matters with significant exposure, motion practice on evidence and procedural issues, and coordination with experts on testimony preparation. The firm's writing room program supports brief writing for pretrial and trial motions through structured peer review and partner mentorship. Lean trial teams produce focused trial strategy and efficient use of client resources.

The firm handles bid protests at all levels of the federal procurement system, including pre-award protests, post-award protests, and Court of Federal Claims appeals of agency contracting officer decisions. The firm has sustained bid protests for defense contractors in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and in federal district courts, including the Eastern District of California. State contractor bid protests are also a regular area of practice, including matters under Louisiana's Public Bid Law and similar state procurement frameworks. The firm coordinates with in-house government contracting personnel, technical experts, and procurement counsel to develop comprehensive protest strategy.

Real estate disputes frequently produce significant appellate questions on contract interpretation, statutory frameworks, and procedural posture. The firm has obtained reversals in the Eleventh Circuit in real estate litigation, demonstrating the firm's appellate capability across the southeastern jurisdictions. Complex real estate litigation covers commercial leasing disputes, real estate finance and transaction matters, broker and agent disputes, and large-scale property litigation involving multiple parties. The firm's Atlanta office provides direct support for matters arising in the Eleventh Circuit jurisdictions of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, with appellate work coordinated across the firm's offices when matters extend beyond the regional footprint.

California Business and Professions Code section 16600 generally prohibits employee non-compete agreements, and California courts have applied this prohibition strictly. Limited exceptions exist for sale-of-business agreements (where the seller of a business or substantial interest in it can agree not to compete with the buyer) and for protecting trade secrets. Employers can still enforce non-solicitation of trade secrets, confidentiality obligations, and contractual non-solicitation of customers in narrow circumstances. Out-of-state employers attempting to enforce non-competes against California employees often face an uphill battle, even when the agreement was signed in another state.

Engaging appellate counsel early in a litigation produces better appellate outcomes. The firm's appellate practice provides counsel at multiple stages: at trial through preservation strategy and motion practice that protects appellate arguments, at the post-trial stage on judgment, motion for new trial, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict considerations, and on appeal through brief writing, oral argument, and follow-on en banc or certiorari petition work. Where appellate counsel joins after a matter has been decided, the firm assesses preservation of issues, evaluates the standard of review for each preserved issue, and develops an appellate strategy that maximizes the available grounds for relief. The firm also provides appellate consultation to trial counsel from other firms on a co-counsel basis.

A well-drafted demand letter can resolve disputes before litigation in many commercial matters, particularly where the dispute is primarily commercial rather than personal. Demand letters communicate the claim, the basis for liability, and the relief sought, and often invite settlement negotiations or mediation before formal proceedings. Demand letters also serve evidentiary purposes if litigation follows, documenting the claim and any pre-suit settlement positions. Not every case benefits from a demand letter; in cases requiring emergency relief (such as injunctive relief in trade secret matters), filing without prior notice may be the better strategy. The decision depends on the goals of the engagement and the dynamics of the dispute.

Discovery is the formal exchange of information between parties before trial. It includes document production (each side produces relevant documents and electronic information), written interrogatories (questions the parties must answer under oath), requests for admission, and depositions (live testimony of witnesses under oath). Discovery takes time because each phase has statutory and rule-based deadlines, and modern commercial cases often involve enormous volumes of electronic information that must be collected, reviewed, and produced. Early planning around discovery scope, custodian selection, and protective orders limits the cost and time the discovery phase consumes.

The statute of limitations depends on the type of claim. Under California law, breach of a written contract has a four-year deadline; breach of an oral contract has two years; fraud claims have three years from discovery; trade secret misappropriation has three years from discovery; tortious interference has two years; and breach of fiduciary duty is generally three or four years depending on whether fraud is at the core. These deadlines can be affected by tolling agreements, equitable estoppel, the discovery rule, and contractual provisions. Because these doctrines are fact-specific, evaluating the limitations period for a specific claim requires looking at when the cause of action accrued and what has happened since.

Yes, oral contracts are generally enforceable in California, with important exceptions. Certain types of agreements must be in writing to be enforceable under California's statute of frauds (Civil Code section 1624), including contracts for the sale of real estate, agreements that cannot be performed within one year, and certain agreements relating to debt. For oral contracts that are enforceable, the limitations period is shorter (two years from breach) compared to written contracts (four years), which makes prompt action important. Proof of oral contract terms typically depends on the testimony of the parties, contemporaneous documents like emails, and the parties' course of dealing.

A temporary restraining order (TRO) is an emergency court order that prevents a party from taking certain actions, typically issued quickly and lasting a short period (often two weeks). A preliminary injunction is a longer-term court order that remains in place until the case is resolved, granted after notice and a hearing. To obtain either, the moving party must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if the order is not granted, that the balance of harms favors the order, and that the order serves the public interest. These remedies are commonly sought in trade secret cases, restrictive covenant disputes, and situations where damages alone cannot remedy the harm.