These examples of cases are illustrative only and reference to these cases must not be considered as a guarantee, warranty, or predicted outcome of any other legal matter, regardless of any similarities:
Jass v. CherryRoad Technologies, 472 F.Supp.3d 787 (D.Haw. 2020) (in representing Plaintiff in an employment dispute involving a high-ranking, corporate whistleblower, the Court held that a conversion claim may exist where Plaintiff alleges Defendants "intentionally took and maintained control of [Jass'] credit card information"; used his "credit card information to make charges for items, goods, and/or services that have strictly benefited Defendants"; and "continued to use the credit cards," despite Jass having "expressly told Defendants to cease . . . and to repay [him] for the unauthorized charges and late fees, which they refused to do.").
Wong v. CherryRoad Technologies, 20-cv-00066 (D.Haw. May 13, 2020) (in representing Plaintiff Wong, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied by the Court).
Jass v. CherryRoad Technologies, 449 F.Supp.3d 923 (D.Haw. 2020) (in representing Plaintiff in "an employment dispute involving a high-ranking, corporate whistleblower," the Court made several rulings, including that the "joint employer" theory is applicable to Plaintiff Jass' claim under the Hawaii Whistleblowers Protection Act.").
Santander v. Caris Med Surg, LLC; Cary Rupert, individually, No. CAAP-15-0000078 (Hawaii App. August 31, 2017) (in pregnancy discrimination case Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirms lower court decision and holds that Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Harris, Esq., failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that an arbitration agreement exists, which Plaintiff, represented by Amaguin Law, argued in briefing constitutes incompetence).
Assaturian v. Hertz Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122213 (D.Hawaii, Sept. 2, 2014) (represented Plaintiff in disability discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate case. In successfully opposing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court ruled that whether the employer engaged in interactive process involving service dog was a jury issue and therefore sent the case to trial).
Wigent v. Science Applications International Corp., 19 F.Supp.3d 1012 (D.Hawaii 2014) (successfully opposed Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on marital discrimination and unlawful retaliation claims. The Court ordered the case to trial).
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Emp. Union v. Honolulu Country Club, 100 F.Supp.2d 1254 (D.Hawaii 1999) (represented Defendant country club and obtained summary judgment for Defendant affirming arbitrator's decision in favor of country club).
Lesane v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., No. 04-16793 (9th Cir. 2006) (represented Defendant airline to summary judgment for Defendant and dismissal of lawsuit by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).
Rutledge v. Berish, et al, No. 99-16813 (9th Cir. 2001) (represented Defendants Hotels, pension plan, and administrators to affirmation by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of dismissal of Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit by the United States District Court of Hawaii).
Yasui v. Maui Electric Co., Ltd., 78 F.Supp.2d 1124 (D.Hawaii 1999) (represented Defendant utility company in a case where the United States District Court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff and for Defendant, and dismissed lawsuit alleging wrongful termination).
Other Representative Cases:
Santander v. Caris Med Surg, LLC and Cary Rupert, individually, 14-1-1554-07 (in pregnancy discrimination case filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants (represented by Jeffrey S. Harris, Esq.) on claim that they terminated Plaintiff due to pregnancy).
March 2012, judgement in U.S. District Court of Hawaii against air charter company in the amount $335,477 in a whistleblower lawsuit filed on behalf of two pilots.
Carvalho v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii, et al., Civil No. CV00348 (D.Hawaii 2010) (represented Plaintiff to settlement in wrongful termination lawsuit, which included reinstatement of disabled employee to his job under Hawaii and federal disability discrimination law).
Kaleuati et al v. Tonda et al, Civil No. 07 CV00184 (D.Hawaii 2007) (represented class action Plaintiffs to settlement, which included requiring the State of Hawaii Department of Education, the Superintendent, and the Board of Education to provide homeless children with equal access to public education and to remove barriers to their educational success).
Markowitz v. Interscholastic League of Honolulu et al., Civil No. 1CC-09-00521 (2009) (represented Plaintiff photojournalist in First Circuit Court to settlement, which included a formal apology to the Samoa News for denying plaintiff access to cover ILH sports events and granting access equal to mainstream media as a member of the press).
Quiton v. Straub Clinic and Hospital, Civ. No. CV1008 (D.Hawaii 1998) (represented Defendant Hospital to summary judgment against Plaintiff and obtained dismissal of lawsuit).
Santiago v. California Association for Research in Astronomy, Civil No. CV00054 (D.Hawaii, 2003) (represented Defendant research facility to summary judgment and dismissal of lawsuit by Plaintiff in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii).
Whether you are an individual or business seeking representation in civil matters Amaguin Law can effectively represent your interests throughout the entire case, whether the best resolution is settlement, ADR, or a trial.
Roman has practiced at large Honolulu law firms and was a partner at one of them. Roman focuses on preventing financial loss and recovery in disputes involving business, employment disputes, and other civil matters.
Roman is well aware of the traditional practice of law firms increasing rates to pay for mounting and extravagent expenses. For that reason, alone, Roman invites clients to offer flat rate, capped engagements, monthly retainers, and other alternative billing arrangements, which can provide clients more value.
Please note: Whether there is a free initial consultation is a decision made on a case by case basis.
Unfortunately, as a solo practitioner I cannot continue to spend time and resources on every call and email without compensation.
I have found at times that the more time I spend with a person providing free legal information and analysis the more they expect that I will take their case. This has led to unjustified anger and criticism directed towards me when I tell them I can no longer help them, which I may have been spared had I charged for the initial consultation.
Thank you for your understanding.