RHRC enjoys a diverse base of clientele, all of whom share one commonality: the need to protect their businesses' viability, future, assets, and reputation. RHRC's distinctively qualified legal professionals facilitate corporation formation, management, state compliance, zoning, and understanding local governance, guiding clients through the intricacies of legal and business requirements. RHRC offers strategies, analyses, and concepts to cultivate resolution of contract, partnership, insurance, broker, and other business-related disputes, minimizing the impact to operations. We offer both our commercial and residential real estate clients pragmatic legal solutions to avoid disruption in daily activities.

RHRC receives many referrals from past and current business clients confident in RHRC's track history of results and ability to understand the fundamental needs and desires of business clients. RHRC is a business, too, so our attorneys understand our clients' concerns and necessities.


In re: James H. Baron, as Receiver v. Fire Insurance Exchange, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case # 1-03-CV-817085, Court of Appeal, Sixth District Case # H029830). Successfully represented a Court-ordered Receiver in a case against a major insurer for its failure to pay complete coverage on a fire insurance policy. The insurance company's adjuster had referred the Receiver to a contractor allegedly on its "approved" "contractor's list." The Receiver hired the contractor to perform the fire damage repairs on the insurance carrier's recommendation. The contractor walked off the job, absconding with a portion of the insurance benefits which had been paid. The carrier then refused to pay further policy benefits and denied further coverage, refusing to pay even the policy benefits it had agreed were owing forcing the Receiver to hire a new contractor funded by Receiver certificates. After a two-week jury trial, the jury awarded damages plus $1.5 million in punitive damages. After the Receiver then successfully moved for an award of attorney's fees, a total judgment of $2.1 million was entered against the insurance company. The award was successfully affirmed on appeal in a published decision.

In Re: Dunn v. Enz (Case No. 103CV005659): In a two member partnership formed to develop six residential homes, our client was sued for purported mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. The Plaintiff alleged our client owed damages in excess of $1,000,000.00. During the first phase of the trial, Plaintiff's claims were defeated. Thereafter, the Plaintiff settled the case by paying our client virtually all of the attorney's fees incurred in defending the claim.

In Re: Hartzheim v. Valley Land (Binding Arbitration): Our client, a commercial tenant in an Auto Mall, exercised its option to extend the term of the lease. The lease provided for a certain method of calculation as to the rent during the option period. A dispute arose between the parties as to the fair market value of rent. After a 2-day binding arbitration, our clients secured a rental rate in accordance with the evidence presented by our office and significantly less than that proposed by the landlord.

In Re: Prevedello v. Marcus & Millichap (binding arbitration). Prosecuted an action by an apartment building owner against a large commercial broker for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the sale of two apartment buildings in Sacramento. After the owner received an interim award of $1.5 million plus attorneys' fees, the parties reached a confidential settlement.

In Re: Nvidia Corporation, Inc. v. Extreme Networks, Inc. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #1-01-CV-803483). RHRC defended a multinational software company in a lease dispute. The settlement was confidential.

In Re: SCS Development Co. v. Sorci-Sanchez, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV 770427). Prevailed at trial in defense of land owners who were sued for specific performance and breach of contract by a home builder regarding the sale of 20 acres of prime residential property in south San Jose with a value spread of over $40 million.

In Re: Mavin Income Fund v. Chang (Sacramento County Superior Court Case #96-AS05978, California Court of Appeal Case #C031484). Represented a lender against a sophisticated apartment owner who allowed property (which served as loan security) to deteriorate, resulting in a judgment in excess of $2.1 million, affirmed on appeal.

In Re: Lewis v. Pico Ranch, Inc., et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #1-02-CV812971). Represented a purchaser of commercial property in San Jose who sued the seller for fraud and concealment for failing to disclose that the tenant was going out of business and rescinding its long-term lease. Sellers fraudulently concealed the tenant's letter to sellers advising them of its shutdown. After a two-week trial, the court tentatively ruled that the principals were liable for fraud and damages in excess of $1 million. Sellers agreed to settle for the full amount plus all attorneys' fees before the Court rendered its final opinion.

In Re: Vidovich v. Home Depot (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV769940). Defended a developer-landowner against breach of contract claims by a national retailer. The settlement was confidential.

In Re: Zamani v. Simons (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV780611). Represented a business seller in an action against a shopping center landlord for unreasonably refusing to consent to a lease assignment. The firm obtained a jury trial award of $90,000 for general damages and a punitive damages award of $400,000, which was successfully upheld on appeal.

In Re: Vorgias v. Valencia, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV 790204). In a complex action involving multiple owners of residential property losing money due to high interest rates, represented one owner who sued the other owners for specific performance. Negotiated a settlement whereby our client obtained full title to the property through a buyout and was able to refinance at lower rates.

In Re: Wells v. Prion (mediation). Settled a dispute for a businesswoman who put the name of her significant other on title to her home, which she had owned for many years, without any written agreement or any financial contribution from him. When the two parted ways, he sued her for a half-interest in the property. At mediation, we negotiated a small buyout of his alleged interest and removed his name from title.

In Re: Wang v. Hwong (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV800410). Represented a couple who co-owned residential rental property in San Jose with a third party without any written ownership and/or management agreement. After a dispute, our clients sued for partition and an accounting. At mediation, we worked out a buyout of our clients' interest.

In Re: Giljum v. Gengenbach, et al. (San Francisco County Superior Court Case #401991). Settled a dispute between relatives who co-owned a San Francisco apartment building. The family members, estranged for years, sued each other for partition and sale and for waste and mismanagement. The settlement agreement provided for sale of the property and fair division of the proceeds.

In Re: Montes v. Ledford (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV811608). Represented a buyer in an action for specific performance and breach of contract against the seller, who tried to terminate the purchase contract for a duplex in Gilroy. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the seller agreed to pay our client all lost profits and attorneys' fees to avoid exposure for punitive damages.

In Re: Chen v. Luu (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV761041). Defended a shopping center owner against a class action suit by 165 tenants seeking damages in excess of $20 million. The case settled for nuisance value after two weeks of trial.

In Re: West v. Prevedello, et al. (Sacramento County Superior Court Case 99 AS02644). Represented owners of an apartment complex in Sacramento who were sued for specific performance by the buyers, prevailing at trial.

In Re: Mimosa Capital Partners v. Scott (mediation). Represented purchasers of a funeral home business who were defrauded by the seller regarding the business relationships, income, and expenses. Through mediation, we succeeded in reducing the original purchase price by 50% and securing financing terms more favorable to our clients.

In Re: Assadi-Jozani v. Prevedello, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV 794028). On the eve of trial, the firm obtained a confidential settlement for a commercial landlord whose tenant attempted to claim that his rent payments were actually mortgage payments due to a series of oral representations.

In Re: Zaccor, et al. v. Marguerit (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV771883). Represented business owners whose bookkeeper embezzled nearly $1 million from half a dozen business and personal accounts over a 15-year period. Using a forensic accountant to trace the embezzled money, we collected $200,000 from the former employee.

In Re: Overland Development v. Gilroy Presbyterian Church (binding arbitration). Represented a developer in an action against a church for breach of contract and specific performance on a land sale agreement. The case resulted in an award in excess of $1 million.

In Re: The Ridgecrest Group, Inc. v. Aghili (San Mateo County Superior Court Case #415942). Represented a group of plaintiffs relating to a breach of partnership agreement claim relating to the purchase, development, and construction of residential property in Menlo Park. The Court awarded plaintiffs in excess of $200,000.

In Re: Ward v. Fox, et al. (San Mateo County Superior Court Case #413014). Defended a multi-million-dollar mortgage loan company in an action brought by a former principal who sued for alleged breach of an employment agreement. The mortgage loan business cross-complained for breach of promissory notes signed in its favor by the former principal. Successfully negotiated a resolution of the disputes.

In Re: Hewell & Sheedy v. Fayram (binding arbitration). Represented a builder and obtained all damages sought against a homeowner who failed to pay for change orders in a home remodeling project.

In Re: Spieker v. County of Santa Clara Tax Assessor's Appeals. Obtained a settlement from the County Assessor reducing valuation of property by approximately $700,000.