Search Site
Menu
Representative Cases

Mr. Lorman has 30 years of experience representing clients in all aspects of real estate, including owners, buyers, sellers, neighbors, partners, developers, brokers, architects, contractors, subcontractors, landlords, tenants, title insurers, lenders, insureds, members of homeowners associations and others in all types of disputes. While with the Gilchrist & Rutter law firm, Mr. Lorman litigated numerous matter for well-known commercial developer Maguire Thomas Partners. Mr. Lorman has been retained by title insurers to represent their insureds with respect to various claims covered by title insurance. Mr. Lorman has also represented clients in various other business disputes. Mr. Lorman has also successfully represented numerous employees in wrongful termination or other employment claims. The following represents a sample of the types of matters Mr. Lorman has successfully handled for clients:

  • D. K. v. Redevelopment Agency – The case of the wrongful foreclosure of a 23 acre shopping center. We substituted into the case after the developers of the shopping center lost their claim in the trial court that their property had been wrongfully foreclosed upon by a Redevelopment Agency. Our appeal was sucessful and we recovered over $2.3 million for one of the developers.
  • Polarized Lighting v. Pierlite Pry, Ltd., Gerard Industries Pry., Ltd. – The multi-million dollar breach of contract. An Australian company breached its contract to purchase polarized lighting panels from Polarized Lighting, claiming that the panels were defective and that they had been defrauded. After a three week jury trial, our client was award over $3.7 million.
  • B. v. Security – The case of the wrongful arrest and imprisonment. We represented the plaintiff who alleged that she was arrested and imprisoned in retaliation for quitting her job. The case was originally dismissed on the grounds that the defendants’ police report was “privileged.” The Court of Appeal reinstated the case in a 2-1 opinion. Plaintiff settled the case before trial.
  • General Hospital v. Vanderstuyf – The case of alleged “kickbacks” and “fraud and abuse.” Two radiologists alleged that money they paid a hospital as their share of certain marketing expenses were wrongful kickbacks in violation of certain “fraud and abuse” federal and state laws. The radiologists demanded millions of dollars in damages. Mr. Lorman represented a hospital in an over three week jury trial in which the hospital was exonerated.
  • Amreal v. V. L. – The case of the alleged shopping center fraud. Mr. Lorman was counsel for the defendant, who developed and then sold the large North Ranch Mall shopping center in Westlake. The buyer accused the defendant of fraud in the sale and demanded millions in damages. After a 3 week jury trial, the defendant was exonerated by the jury and was awarded recovery on his cross complaint plus his attorneys fees.
  • LLC v. Self Realization Fellowship Church – The case of the easement interference. We represented the plaintiff which had purchased a two acre Pacific Palisades site on Sunset Boulevard near Pacific Coast Highway for a condominium project. Access to the site was over a recorded easement burdening the adjacent property owned by the Self Realization Fellowship Church. The Church alleged that the access easement had been extinguished. The plaintiff settled the case during the litigation by selling the property to the Church for a substantial profit.
  • Doe v. State Board of Trustees – The case of the harassed professor. Mr. Lorman represented the plaintiff, a tenured faculty member at a state university. Her complaint alleged discrimination and harassment. Her claim was confidentially settled before trial.
  • d. p. v. datalok – The case of interference with the sale of a storage business. Mr. Lorman represented the plaintiff, a franchisee in the records storage business. The plaintiff alleged that the franchisor intentionally interfered with the sale of the business. During the arbitration, a settlement was reached permitting the sale of the business to Pierce Leahy, now known as Iron Mountain.
  • W.W. v. Schwartz – The corporate ownership dispute. Mr. Lorman represented the plaintiff in a dispute concerning the corporate ownership and management of of a corporation which had developed a well-known camera technology in the motion picture business. As a result of the settlement, the plaintiff obtained total control of the corporation.
  • Schiendelman v. C. P. Inc – The case of the alleged construction defects. Mr. Lorman acted as “Cumis counsel” (counsel selected by the insured and paid for by the insurer) for the defendant developer against allegations of contruction defects in the repair of a apartment building after the Northridge earthquake. The allegations were settled by the insurer before trial without the admission of any wrongdoing by the developer.
  • M. L. v. A. F. – The non-disclosed option to purchase. Mr. Lorman represented the plaintiff, buyer of a condominium development site. During escrow, the sellers disclosed that the tenant had a purchase option. When the tenant purported to exercise the option, the defendants refused to close escrow. Plaintiff settled before trial for substantial damages.
  • E. F. v. D. T. – The roofing business partnership dispute. Mr. Lorman represented the plainitff, who alleged that he had an undocumented ownership interest in certain real property and a roofing business. The defendants denied any such interests. The case was settled before trial for substantial damages.
  • D. H. v. U. – The case of the automated clinical laboratory. Mr. Lorman represented the plaintiff, who moved to California to accept a job to automate a clinical laboratory. However, his employment was terminated within about a year. The plaintiff alleged a claim pursuant to Labor Code, Section 970. The claims were favorably settled before arbitration commenced.


Equine Law 

Mr. Lorman is licensed as a thorougbred race horse owner and has been a partner in many successful race horses. Mr. Lorman’s daughters are accomplished competitive hunter-jumper riders. Mr. Lorman represents Cole Ranch, a thoroughbred boarding facility in Central California. He has represented horse owners and trainers in various equine related matters.

Summary Judgments 
Mr. Lorman has lectured extensively concerning developments in the summary judgment law, which permits a case to be terminated before trial where no material triable issues of fact exist. Mr. Lorman has successfully obtained and defended against dozens of summary judgment motions over his career.

Appeals 
Mr. Lorman has handled numerous matters in the Court of Appeal, including the following non-published cases:

Non-published Appellate Cases 

  • Fouts v. Alhambra Hospital, et. al, B080024 summary judgment for defendant hospital upheld on appeal;
  • Arostegui v. Maguire Thomas Partners-Fifth & Grand, Ltd . B052334, summary judgment for defendant affirmed on appeal;
  • Kline v. Redevelopment Agency of Pomona, summary judgment for defendant reversed upon appeal;
  • Sunset Palisades v. Self Realization Fellowship Church, settlement agreement enforced on appeal;
  • Infant & Nutritional Products v. Superior Court, writ issued regarding disqualification of judge;
  • Gottlieb v. The Oaks of Calabasas Homeowners, denial of preliminary injunction affirmed on appeal;
  • Becerra v. Burns International Security, dismissal of case revered on appeal.


Other Cases:

  • Malibu Outrigger Board of Governors v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent
  • Title Insurance and Trust Company, Real Party in Interest, 103 Cal. App. 3d 573 (1980)
  • Sherman v. Lloyd, 181 Cal. App. 3d 693 (1986)
Contact us

Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.

Quick Contact Form

Our Office
  • Santa Monica Office
    1717 Fourth Street
    Third Floor
    Santa Monica, California 90401
    Phone: 310-451-0049
    Fax: 310-393-8180