Bidari Civil Defense
Verdicts and Settlements

Mr. Bidari defended the Sheriff’s Department and involved Sheriff Deputies.

This serious personal injury case involved a deputy sheriff who had been found (by the CHP) to be at fault for causing this accident. As such, the only remaining issues were plaintiffs’ personal injuires. At trial, Plaintiffs sought almost $5,000,000.00 in damages against the Sheriff’s Department.

Verdict: Judgment for the Sheriff’s Department (on a case where deputy caused the accident)!!

People v. M. Schwenn.

The People of the State of California were represented by Mr. Bidari.

This criminal jury trial filed against property owner alleged the property was a health hazard to its occupant and neighboring properties. Although all pre-trial efforts made by Mr. Bidari to settle the case amicably failed, Mr. Bidari convinced the jury to find the property owner guilty. The property was subsequently abated, and the property owner was sentenced to jail.

Verdict for: People

San Bernardino County Land Use Services v. Andy Acosta, et al.

Mr. Bidari represented Land Use Services in filing an Unfair Business Practice Act violation alleging the property was misused by the owner for operating an unpermitted lumber business. A major obstacle in this case was the fact that another county department had previously contracted with the same property owner for lumber work involving the same property. Despite the difficult facts and legal hurdles involved in this case, at trial Mr. Bidari convinced the Court that nonetheless this operation was a fire hazard and a threat to the community and as such should be abated (stopped).

In response, the Court issued a permamanet injunction enjoining (stopping) all lumber operations, fined the business $145,000.00. Subsequently, defendant stipulated to paying fines of up to $1,000,000.00 for any future violations.

Verdict: Judgment for San Bernardino County Land Use Services 

Hubert Spivey v. County of San Bernardino County Public Works Department.  

Mr. Bidari defended County of San Bernardino County Public Works Department.

On February 3, 2009, Plaintiff Spivey (62) a retired fire captian, was driving on Lytle Creek Road during a bad storm. He claimed that at approximately 1 p.m., a large tree fell on the back roof of his car, throwing him into the moon roof and rendering him unconscious. Spivery also claimed his car continued another 400 feet where it struck another tree and threw him in to the windshield. Spivey sued alleging the County failed to properly maintain its trees, creating a dangerous condition. The County contended that it did not have notice of any dangerous condition and that Spivey was negligent for not wearing a seatbelt which caused his head to hit the windshield. It was undisputed that Plaintiff suffered brain injury, internal bleeding, cognitive defects, memory loss, subarachnoid hemorrhage and sutures as a result of this accident. However, it was proven that Plaintiff had notice of the alleged dangerous condition prior to the accident and yet never notified any government official. Plaintiff asked for $300,000 to 500,000 in total damages.

Verdict: Judgment for San Bernardino County Public Works Department. Jury Vote: 10-2. Trial Length: 6 days; Trial deliberations: 6 hours.

County of San Bernardino v. David Eshelmen

Mr. Bidari represented the County of San Bernardino

Mr. Bidari filed this case against a (former) local mayor who was operating an illegal trucking business.

Verdict: Judgment for the County. Former Mayor fined $50,000.00.

In re J. Anderson, et al. 

Mr. Bidari represented the Department of Children Services

In this case, biological father was accused of molesting his two sons. One of the reasons this case was exceptionally difficult was because previously a family law judge had found the father innocent. After that finding, the Department of Children Services re-filed this case in juvenile court. However, even in the juvenile law court proceedings, the court appointed psychologist testified the children were not molested and were safe with the father.

The trial involved multiple experts with conflicting testimonies on complicated sexual molest issues and dynamics. After 13 days of trial, and despite the history of the case, adverse prior family law court ruling, the juvenile law judge found the father had in fact molested his sons and as such the court permanently removed them from the father’s custody and placed them with their mother.

Verdict for: Department of Children Services.

County of San Bernardino Land Use Services v. Futter, Inc.

Mr. Bidari represented Land Use Services.

Corporation/business owner operated a verma-culture fertilizing operation in zoning that did not permit such a use. This operation posed a fire hazard to the surrounding properties. Although after tial, the business owner was both jailed and fined $35,000,00., he would not stop operating.

Since the owner did not stop his illegal operation, Mr. Bidari asked the Court to appoint a receiver who not only stopped the operations, but also paid all the unpaid taxes, liens and debts that were liened against the property- costing the owner approximately $475,000.00. Property was sold in an auction sale.

Futter, Inc.  v. County of San Bernardino 

Mr. Bidari defended the County of San Bernardino.

Futter, Inc. filed this federal civil rights violation case against the County for the loss of the above property claiming his 5th Amendment right to his property were violated when the county sought the apppointed of a receivership.

Case dismissed in favor of County of San Bernardino.

Huebscher v. County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Permit & Planning Division

Mr. Bidari defended County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Permit & Planning Division

Mr. Bidari was asked to take over this case from another attorney. The owner of 42 acres fo property claimed violations of the Subdivision Map Act as well as allegations of harassment and discrimination by the County Land Use Services. Mr. Bidari successfully moved to dimiss the case via a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, Mr. Bidari also represented the Permit and Planning Division before the Planning Commission.

Case dismissed in favor of County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Permit & Planning Division

County Redevelopment Agency (RDA) v. Mushegain Industries.

Mr. Bidari represented the Redevelopment Agency.

Mushegain Industries owned several property that were adjacent to the California Speedway. However, they were in violation of several health and safety laws as well as zoning violations. Twelve complaints were filed by Mr. Bidari against Mushegain Industries. All property came into compliance. All twelve complaints resulted in Stipulated Judgments wherein owner would be pay fines of $1,000 per day/per violation.

Verdict: Stipulated Judgments (12) in favor of Redevelopment Agency.

FEDERAL CASES

Gary Benson v. Adelanto Sheriff’s Department, et al. 

Mr. Bidari defended the Adelanto Sheriff’s Department and other named deputies.

Plaintiff claimed racial discrimination and selective prosecution by the sheriff’s department and its involved deputies claiming the deputies selectivecly refused to arrest a neo-nazi who had earlier attacked Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s race. Moreover, Plaintiff claimed the deputies denied him medical treatment as well due to his race.

Judment for the Adelanto Sheriff’s Department.

Excelsior Youth Center v. County Probation Department, et al. 

Mr. Bidari defended the Probation Department.

Plaintiffs who were an out of state juvenile placement center for delinquent girls claimed the County Probation Department breached its agreement when it failed to pay “educational costs” for each placed juvenile. Case settled for confidential amount.

Ditsler v. County of San Bernardino Children Services.

Mr. Bidari defended County of San Bernardino Children Services.

Plaintiff whose dautgher was removed due to sexual molest allegations was found not guilty during a criminal prosecution case filed by another county legal office. Upon his acquittal, he filed this civil rights violation case against the Department for unlawfully remvoing his daughter and filing criminal charges against him.

Judgment for Defendants via Motion for Summary Judgment.