News

David Bernardoni named a Partner

March 1, 2016

Kulik Gottesman Siegel & Ware LLP is pleased to announce that, effective March 1, 2016, David Bernardoni has been named a partner with the firm.  Mr. Bernardoni joined Kulik Gottesman Siegel & Ware LLP in July 2006.  Since that time has built a diverse civil litigation practice, which includes real estate, employment, homeowner association and […]

Glen Kulik Honored by Daily Journal

July 8, 2015

Glen Kulik was recognized by the Daily Journal as one of the top 75 intellectual property litigator…

California Court of Appeal Rules On Whether a Homeowners Association is Required to Accept Partial Payments

October 17, 2014

On October 14, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued a published decision in the case Huntington Continental Townhouse Association, Inc. v. Joseph A. Miner (Court of Appeal Case No. G049624). The case addressed whether a homeowners association must accept partial payments to reduce delinquent assessments. The Court of Appeal held that under Civil Code section […]

Raging Bull Supreme Court Decision

May 30, 2014

Glen Kulik represented the appellant before the United States Supreme Court in Petrella vs. MGM, which resulted in a a reversal in favor of the firm’s client in a copyright infringement case that many experts have heralded as one of the most significant copyright decisions in the past 50 years. Ms. Petrella’s father wrote the […]

Court of Appeal Decision

August 2, 2013
,

On June 19, 2013, Len Siegel, Tom Ware, and David Bernardoni secured a Court of Appeal decision upholding the trial court’s sustaining of a homeowner association’s demurrer to homeowners’ complaint seeking to hold the Association liable for in excess of $200,000 in damages arising out of engineering errors in the homeowners’ architectural application. The victory […]

California Supreme Court Articulates the Mixed Motive Defense for Employers

July 26, 2013

In the recent case of Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013), the California Supreme Court clarified the “mixed motive defense” that employers frequently use in litigation. The mixed motive defense generally applies where, although the plaintiff has shown an employer’s intentional discrimination, the employer has also proved it would have made […]

Scroll to Top