- Serving clients from Virginia Beach to Richmond
Our Client, Plaintiff is a member of a licensure-required work industry. Plaintiff alleged that two Defendants conspired to and did defame him, pursuant to allegations of three witnesses who alleged to Plaintiff that Defendants represented to them that Plaintiff, among other things, was expelled from Plaintiff’s industry for doing something illegal and that the three witnesses at issue were not to speak with Plaintiff about what Defendants allegedly told them.
Plaintiff did not discover the defamatory statements until more than a year had passed since they were verbally published. Plaintiff filed suit after the statute of limitations expired, alleging defamation, defamation per se, tortious interference with contract, and statutory conspiracy. Plaintiff overcame Defendants’ Plea in Bar as to the statute of limitations for defamation claims by arguing Defendants’ obstructed Plaintiff’s discovery of Plaintiff’s causes of action when Defendants told the three witnesses not to speak with Plaintiff.
Defendants’ anticipated trial defense strategy was three-fold: (1) they denied making any negative statements regarding Plaintiff to the three witnesses at issue and any other person, for that matter, (2) that even if Defendants had made such statements, the statements were true, and (3) Plaintiff’s alleged damages were too speculative to warrant consideration by a jury.
After nearly two years of hard-fought litigation, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $100,000 and agreed to execute affidavits under oath denying personal knowledge of, among other things, Plaintiff ever having been expelled from Plaintiff’s industry in exchange for a release of all claims.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $100,000 settlement, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
Employee (Plaintiff) was President of a Company (the Defendant). Defendant terminated Plaintiff after an eight-year tenure. In Plaintiff’s second year of his tenure, Defendant issued to Plaintiff shares of stock in the Company via a stock certificate as recognition for Plaintiff’s significant contributions to the Company’s growth in a private surprise ceremony of just Defendant’s CEO, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s spouse. The stock certificate was post-dated and had an invalid certificate identification number.
Defendant issued Plaintiff shares despite Plaintiff’s failure to meet the required revenue milestones to be entitled to ownership interest. Defendant never issued Plaintiff a K-1 tax form in the years to follow. Plaintiff never asked to be issued a K-1 tax form. Defendant never issued Plaintiff distributions. Plaintiff never asked to receive distributions. Defendant submitted various government certification documents in the years following the issuance of the stock certificate and Plaintiff was never listed as an owner. Plaintiff signed the same government certification documents. Defendant never recorded issuance of Plaintiff’s shares of stock on Defendant’s stock ledger.
Upon being terminated, Plaintiff asked to be compensated for the stock certificate. Plaintiff still had the original in his possession. Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiff. Defendant took the position the stock certificate was unenforceable and declined to negotiate. Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract.
Defendant denied all material allegations and filed counterclaims alleging breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Plaintiff’s non-compete provision contained in his employment agreement with Defendant. The basis of Defendant’s counterclaims were allegations that Plaintiff purposefully bound Defendant to financial obligations Plaintiff knew were above-market-value, Plaintiff started a business that began competing with Defendant before his employment ended, and Plaintiff continued competing with Defendant after being terminated.
After months of hard-fought litigation, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $185,000 and agreed to waive the remainder of Plaintiff’s non-compete prevision, allowing Plaintiff to resume his business.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $185,000 settlement, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $60,000 judgment, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $50,566.16 judgment, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
Our clients hired an individual and a business that represented themselves as licensed Class A contractors to perform substantial work on their home. Relying on those representations, our clients paid a significant deposit up front.
After taking the money, the defendants failed to perform any meaningful work on the project. They repeatedly delayed, then stopped responding altogether and did not return to the property.
The lawsuit contained allegations of breach of contract and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act based on the defendants’ false claims about their licensing status, their acceptance of a large deposit, and their failure to perform the promised work.
The Virginia Beach Circuit Court entered a $60,000 judgment in favor of our clients, providing compensation for their financial losses and the harm caused by the defendants’ misconduct.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $60,000 judgment, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
Our client entered into a consignment agreement with a car dealership to sell his truck. He delivered the vehicle and signed paperwork authorizing the dealership to sell it on his behalf.
The dealership sold the truck but never paid our client any of the sale proceeds. Despite repeated requests, the dealership refused to account for the money or honor the contract.
The lawsuit contained allegations of breach of contract and violations of Virginia’s Consumer Protection Laws based on the dealership’s failure to remit the proceeds from the consignment sale. The defendant disputed liability and claimed it did not owe the full amount demanded.
The Westmoreland County Circuit Court entered a judgment for $115,326.01 in favor of our client, reflecting the value of the vehicle, related damages, and applicable relief under the Consumer Protection statutes, including our client’s attorney’s fees.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $115,326.01 judgment, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
2025. Our client previously received radiation to the head and neck as treatment for throat cancer. Years later, he underwent dental extractions and placement of implants.
During the dental procedure and follow‑up, he developed serious complications, including implant failure and exposed jawbone. He was ultimately diagnosed with osteoradionecrosis and required multiple surgeries, including removal of dead jawbone and reconstruction.
The lawsuit alleged that the treating dentist should have recognized the increased risk from the prior radiation and taken additional precautions, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, before proceeding. The defendant disputed both the standard of care and whether any different treatment would have changed the outcome.
After extensive discovery and expert review, the case was resolved at mediation for a $1,800,000 settlement, which included compensation for significant past medical expenses and future care needs.
Disclaimer: Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client’s matter. Past results, including this $1,800,000 settlement, do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in any other cases.
Consultation Fee Notice
Please note: Scheduling a consultation with our office requires payment of a non-refundable $250 fee, payable in advance. Consultation Fee Notice Please note: Scheduling a consultation with our office requires payment of a non-refundable $250 fee, payable in advance.
No Attorney-Client Relationship
Scheduling and/or paying for a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is only established after both you and our firm sign a formal engagement agreement.
No Legal Advice
Information provided on this website, or during the scheduling process, is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Confidentiality
Please do not submit any confidential or sensitive information through this website or the scheduling form. Confidentiality is only established after an attorney-client relationship is formally created.
Attorney Advertising
This website may be considered attorney advertising under the laws of certain jurisdictions. By clicking “Proceed,” you acknowledge and accept the terms above, including the $250 non-refundable consultation fee.
