In the spring of 2005, James Van Camp, Thomas Van Camp, and Tiffany Skillman tried a securities fraud case in the Los Angeles Superior Court. As lead counsel, the firm prepared for and participated in all aspects of the trial, including opening statement, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and closing argument. The firm represented a plaintiff who invested in excess of $800,000 in a San Francisco based dot.com company. The plaintiff alleged that the company had made false and misleading statements in both a Private Placement Memorandum and a Prospectus relating to an initial public offering. After approximately 3-1/2 weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the return of his entire investment. After fees and costs are awarded, the total judgment should exceed two million dollars. Other points of interest include that Harvey Pitt, former Chairman of the SEC, served as plaintiff’s expert, and the plaintiff was an attorney who clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall on the United States Supreme Court in the early 1970s.

In 2003, James Van Camp and Thomas Van Camp of the firm represented the family of a 9 year-old boy who sustained severe injuries when a box truck crossed the centerline of the highway and struck the vehicle being operated by the child’s father. Tragically, the father did not survive the accident, and the child sustained a traumatic brain injury. The firm obtained a settlement in excess of one million dollars to compensate the family for the loss of the father. In connection with the child’s claim, after working with numerous medical and economic experts, the firm successfully settled the child’s case for in excess of five million dollars present value. The settlement was structured, and will result in payments to the minor child over his life expectancy in an amount of approximately twenty-four million dollars. Most importantly, the child now has the resources to pay for the best medical and rehabilitative care available, and primarily through the use of these funds, and the tireless effort of the child’s mother, the child is in school and living a productive and fruitful life.

In 2002, Thomas Van Camp of the firm represented a client who was sued for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA provides a civil remedy against entities and individuals who fax unsolicited advertisements to potential customers. In response to the lawsuit, the firm developed a legal argument that the client’s insurance carrier had a duty to defend the TCPA class action claims, which were filed throughout the country, and also a duty to indemnify in the event the client was found liable. A declaratory judgment action was filed on behalf of the client in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In a case of first impression, the federal court ruled that the insurance carrier did have a duty to defend. The case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and subsequently settled. As a result of this decision, the firm was retained to represent several other entities throughout the United States to assist in obtaining insurance coverage for TCPA claims, including a successful declaratory judgment action in the Kansas Federal District Court. That case is currently on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the spring of 2000, Thomas Van Camp represented an individual who was shot in the arm and leg by a Forsyth County Deputy. The Sheriff’s Department denied liability, claiming that the client had resisted arrest. The case was tried in federal court in the Middle District of North Carolina, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The claim was brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Approximately 20 witnesses testified at the trial, including several experts in the fields of excessive force and forensic science. Despite numerous legal obstacles, including an argument by the defendants that the Sheriff and the Deputy were immune from suit, the jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

In 1998, Michael J. Newman of the firm represented a 32 year old woman who was hit head-on by a drunk driver as she was driving home from the veterinarian’s office. She was in her seventh month of pregnancy with twins. The impact caused her to suffer a placental abruption, and the twins were delivered by emergency C-section. The babies spent several months in the pediatric ICU, and the medical bills exceeded $200,000. During litigation, it was revealed that the vehicle being operated by the defendant was owned by an automobile dealership, and had been loaned to the defendant. On the morning of the accident, the dealership had called the defendant and asked him to return to the dealership to complete the paperwork for purchasing the vehicle. After learning of the accident, the dealership back-dated certain sales documents to make it appear that the defendant owned the vehicle at the time of the accident. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and against both the driver and the dealership, in the amount of $1,600,000. Upon adding interest and costs, the judgment totaled approximately $2,000,000.