Mr. King has been practicing law in San Diego since 2004, where he focuses on employment, business, and public interest litigation. Before becoming a lawyer, Mr. King received his undergraduate degree in accounting from Creighton University in 2001 and graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2004.
Mr. King has successfully handled numerous complex matters, including:
Friends of the Children’s Pool v. City of San Diego and California Coastal Commission, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 2015-00778153 (2016): Mr. King represented the Friends of the Children’s Pool and successfully obtained a ruling overturning a San Diego City ordinance prohibiting people from using a man-made public beach for five months of the year.
Aon v. Brogdon Properties, Labor Commissioner, Case No.10-86934 (2015): An independent contractor claimed he was misclassified as an employee, and sought $28,000 in unpaid wages and penalties against Mr. King’s client. After a hearing before the Labor Commisioner, Mr. King obtained a complete defense ruling and the complaining independent contractor recovered nothing.
Kindreich Overtime Class Action, United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:14-cv-00308-KSC (2015): Mr. King represented a class of ESL teachers who claimed overtime and other unpaid wages. Mr. King obtained a favorable cash settlement on behalf of the class members.
Kennedy v. City of San Diego, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 2014-00016245 (2014): Mr. King won a lawsuit against the City of San Diego, forcing them to produce public records regarding water treatment and pay $75,000 in attorney fees and costs.
Loera, et al., v. Akal Security, Inc., Imperial County Superior Court, Case No. ECU03022 (2011): Class action brought on behalf of over 300 custody officers for overtime, meal and rest period premium wages earned while working for a private contractor at the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Service Processing Center in El Centro, California. After certifying the case as a class action, Mr. King and his co-counsel took the case to trial and won – placing themselves in a small, but distinguished class of lawyers who have prevailed at trial on a wage and hour class action. Prior to the damages phase of the proceedings, the defendant agreed to pay the class $9.75 million in satisfaction of their claims, one of the highest per capita recoveries on any meal and rest break class action.
Confidential settlement in wrongful death case. (2013): The decedent died under suspicious circumstances, and Mr. King represented the surviving children in a wrongful death case. Pursuant to a confidential settlement, plaintiffs recovered in excess of $1 million on their claims.
Stinson v. Kittinger, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2009-000622072-CU-FR-NC, (2012): The defendant owed approximately $1.3 million on a court judgment for elder abuse, and tried to avoid paying the debt by getting a divorce and transferring her real estate assets to her husband as part of a marital settlement agreement. Mr. King represented the plaintiff at trial and won a judgment declaring the defendant’s transfers actively and constructively fraudulent. Later, the defendant declared bankruptcy and Mr. King successfully moved the court to declare the underlying debt non-dischargeable.
Involuntary dissolution/shareholder oppression. San Diego Superior Court Case (2012): The majority owners of a corporation fired the minority shareholder, attempted to cancel his 20 percent interest in the company, and claimed that he owed them $600,000. Mr. King represented the minority owner, and petitioned to have the corporation dissolved. After prevailing at trial on the dissolution action, the defendants agreed to a confidential settlement on favorable terms for the minority shareholder.
Confidential settlement of whistleblower claims, (2012): Mr. King represented an employee who was terminated after he complained about the employer’s illegal conduct. Representing the employee, Mr. King negotiated a favorable out of court settlement with the employer.
Probate Trial Re: Trust Amendment & Advancements, San Diego Superior Court (2012): In this probate litigation, Mr. King represented the trustees of decedent’s testamentary trust and successfully persuaded the court to accept decedent’s handwritten memorandum as an effective amendment to the trust creating an advancement in the balance of unpaid loans owed to her when she died.
Caya v. Ascher, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00428018 (2011): Mr. King represented two directors of a nonprofit charitable foundation in an action to remove three other directors for cause based on breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. After a bench trial, the three defendants agreed to resign and disclaim their position and control of the charity was successfully returned to Mr. King’s clients.
Rifle v. Red Top Cab, et al., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC871281 (2008): Action on behalf of a small class of taxicab drivers against the cab company owner for complaints regarding their working conditions. Mr. King was appointed class counsel and negotiated a $180,000 settlement with the defendants – marking one of the first recoveries for San Diego taxicab drivers in an action to vindicate their right to workplace protections.
Nava v. Home Carpet Investment, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC874603 (2009): Action on behalf of a class of employees for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Labor Code. Mr. King was appointed class co-counsel and negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of the class.
Zayak v. Hardisty, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC852090 (2007): In a dispute among former business partners, Mr. King represented plaintiff on his promissory note claim against defendant. After a ten day jury trial, defendant agreed to pay the promissory note in full, as well as the full amount of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs.
Singer v. RWCN, et al., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2007-00050255-CU-CL-NC (2008): In this residential construction dispute, the general contractor demanded that the homeowners pay an additional $230,000 for unnecessary services they did not agree to. Mr. King represented the homeowners, and after a six day bench trial, the general contractor agreed to drop his claims and pay the homeowners $180,000.