This office has achieved successful and satisfactory results (garnering millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts as well as securing various types of non-monetary relief) on behalf of the clients. We take pride in what we do at the Law Office of Roland Ho and always continue to strive for further excellence. Tiredness and abandonment of our clients’ causes are not in our blood. We believe in persistence and hard work. Such belief and effort derive from the thought that justice and fairness will always prevail ultimately. Due to the confidential nature of the settlement agreements as well as the voluminous number of the claims resolved, our office will not be able to enumerate them all. The following is just a short list of noteworthy cases handled by this office:

Wrongful Termination (Age & Gender Discrimination)

Our client asserted grounds for wrongful termination against a well-known and respectable religious college after over 20 years of dedication, service and loyalty with this school. A demand was submitted to this institution and a mediation took place. With our office’s assistance and strategic maneuvers, this client was able to achieve a compromise for 6 figures, without having to file a lawsuit in court.

K. Li v. B. Zhao (Los Angeles Superior Court case number: KC056624) (Court of Appeal case number: B230620)

Plaintiff (represented by this office) filed a lawsuit in court seeking the return of all properties purchased in contemplation of marriage from defendant who countered that all such properties bought were gifts during a relationship.

Our client bought a home, improved on the subject residence and furnished the house with furniture and articles specially purchased from China, all in anticipation of a matrimony. Defendant denied any arrangement or agreement to be married. Plaintiff stated that defendant refused to consummate the marriage ceremony because plaintiff did not produce the 5-caret ring and the $300,000 cash payment as demanded prior to the actual wedding.

Prior to and on the date of the trial, plaintiff moved to continue the trial on the grounds that plaintiff and a major witness would be unavailable. However, the court denied the requests made. Plaintiff was absent from the trial because of various reasons, including health problems.

Plaintiff’s counsel, facing an order of dismissal by the trial court, proceeded with the trial without the participation of the plaintiff himself and of the essential witness. A court judgment was rendered against our client.

After the judgment, plaintiff and this office learned and believed that the defense counsel perpetrated fraud by posing as an agent for an Italian company, wanting to buy the goods sold by our client’s company in China. This agent insisted that our client remain in China to meet the actual buyer. Plaintiff was deceived into believing that a prospective customer was interested in purchasing the material from our client’s company.

The trial court reached a decision on the ground that there was no express agreement between the parties to be married. Post-trial motions were pursued but to no avail.

Appeal thus ensued, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for new trial stating that there was error committed by the trial court in the interpretation of a statute. The reasoning was that an agreement to marry could be implied by the conduct of the parties.

Note: The defense trial counsel for the underlying lawsuit withdrew shortly after the defendant acquired the favorable judgment (that was subsequently reversed). A different counsel for the defendant handled the appeal.

A new trial before the jury took place, and this office was able to successfully brought the case to a jury verdict in favor of our client for a judgment in the sum of $263,417.65, with pre-judgment interest at 10%  ($131,708.85) and costs ($7,822.71), totaling $402,949.21.

Matter of F. Barnhart

Our client (claimant) was injured while riding a bicycle by a truck. The driver’s insurance company argued that the claimant was traveling on the wrong side of the street, in an attempt to avoid liability. After presenting evidence and negotiations with the insurance carrier for the driver, this office secured a  maximum settlement amount from the liable driver’s insurance company in 6 figures, which was the policy limit of the insurance coverage, for the client.

Marriage of Tang (Orange County Superior Court case number: 06D004299) (Court of Appeal case number: G040994)

Petitioner (represented by this office) sought dissolution of her marriage in court. While the family law petition was pending, petitioner filed a separate civil lawsuit based on the belief that her husband, the respondent, was committing fraud by concealing community assets.

At the time of the filing of the civil case, petitioner attempted to consolidate the two actions to be resolved by the family law court. Respondent moved for sanctions against the petitioner and her counsel for filing an independent civil suit in the family law court. The family law judge granted the motion and awarded the sum claimed to have expended exceeding $20,000 on the issues raised in the civil complaint against petitioner and this office.

Outraged at the ruling of the family law judge, petitioner’s counsel appealed the decision of the lower court. This office managed to persuade the appellate court that the evidence supporting the sanctions award was insufficient. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the determination of the trial court. Respondent, during the pendency of the appeal, sought further monetary sanctions but was unsuccessful.

C. Ugalde v. J. Velasco, et al. ( Los Angeles Superior Court case number: TC018271)

This case involves breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff (our client) entered into an agreement to purchase defendants’ home for $280,000 less 10% ($28,000) of the sale price (the sale price was $252,000), and that plaintiff agreed to pay for the closing costs.

The agreement was that defendants would refund the $28,000 to our client and her husband after the closing of the escrow. They reason why our client negotiated the sale price was because defendants’ property was in a bad condition in need of repairs. Plaintiff wanted to use the $28,000 to fix up the home.

Defendants had a change of heart and refused to perform the agreed term. A lawsuit ensued and this office secured a judgment through a court trial in favor of our client.

Ul Tran Technology & Service Co. v. J&E Media, Inc. (GC039825)

Plaintiff, a Taiwan company (represented by this office), sued the defendant for failure to pay for the CDs and DVDs purchased from our client. Defendant filed a cross-complaint alleging that most of the CDs and DVDs bought were defective, thus seeking damages, including lost profits, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

During the litigation, defendant exerted great effort to distract from the real issues of the case, forcing plaintiff to counter frivolous actions and motions. But despite all of the unmeritorious activities, this office successfully brought our client’s case to a conclusion (including the dismissal of the cross-complaint) and obtained a judgment in the sum in excess of $200,000.