Skip to main content

Patrick Tira

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in San Diego, CA

Tira Law APC
1094 Cudahy Place, Suite 112
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: 858-333-5220
Email: Patrick Tira
Selected to Rising Stars: 2022
Licensed in California Since: 2007
Practice Areas: Business Litigation, Civil Litigation: Plaintiff, Civil Litigation: Defense, Appellate, Banking, Real Estate: Business
Attorney Profile

Patrick Tira is a highly skilled attorney with a demonstrated history of resolving business and real property disputes. He has extensive experience in consumer finance, trade secret protection, shareholder disputes, commercial disputes, and real estate finance.  Mr. Tira has prevailed on behalf of clients in both trial and appellate courts.

About Patrick Tira

First Admitted: 2007, California

Professional Webpage:


  • The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently held that an elder, who is both beneficiary and personal representative of a probate estate, has standing to bring a claim of financial elder abuse in her individual capacity based on allegations that her son and a lender wrongfully deprived her of property through a predatory loan transaction with the estate. The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s order sustaining demurrers to the elder’s financial elder abuse claim. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal held that special circumstances justify allowing the elder to maintain the cause of action in her own name, since the elder could not bring the claim as the estate’s personal representative and there was no third-party personal representative to sue., Estate’s Personal Rep Can Sue Individually for Elder Abuse Where Rep is Also Beneficiary of Estate, Probate, Trusts, Estate Litigation
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the federal removal statute authorizes only a “defendant or the defendants” to remove an action to federal court.  The Ninth Circuit reversed a District Court’s order denying a borrower’s motion to remand, after an unnamed Trustee removed the action to federal court on behalf of a defendant Trust.  In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that because an unnamed party removed the case, the District Court should have remanded it instead of retaining jurisdiction., 9th Cir. Holds Only Defendants May Remove an Action to Federal Court; Unnamed Real Party in Interest Cannot Remove Action; Splits With 2nd Cir., Litigation
  • The California Supreme Court recently held that Section 637.2 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Pen. Code, § 630, et seq. (“CIPA”) prohibits parties as well as nonparties from intentionally recording a communication transmitted between a cellular or cordless phone and another device without the consent of all parties to the communication. The California Supreme Court reversed a contrary interpretation by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, that Section 632.7 applies only to nonparties and does not forbid a party to a phone call from recording the conversation without the consent of the other party or parties. In so ruling, the California Supreme Court held that a party to a conversation involving a cellular or cordless telephone violates Section 632.7 when that party records the conversation, without the other party’s consent., California Invasion of Privacy Act Prohibits Recording Cellphone Communications Without Consent
  • The California Court of Appeal, Second District, recently reversed a trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award against a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement where the arbitrator found the nonsignatory was the alter ego of a signatory. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court and not the arbitrator must determine whether the nonsignatory was a party to the arbitration agreement., Calif. App. Court Holds Arbitrator Cannot Determine Whether to Compel Nonsignatory to Arbitrate
  • Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-37-20 creating state-wide restrictions on evictions due to the nonpayment of rent for certain residential tenants impacted by the novel coronavirus, COVID-19., Governor Newsom Issues Order Protecting Certain Residential Tenants From Eviction
  • The California Court of Appeal, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a request for attorneys’ fees, after a consumer prevailed under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act against an assignee of his consumer credit contract. The Court of Appeal deferred to the Federal Trade Commission’s 2015 Rule Confirmation interpreting the Holder Rule, which allows consumers to sue holders of certain consumer credit contracts. The Court of Appeal held that the Holder Rule limits a consumer’s total recovery, including attorney’s fees, to the amount the consumer paid under the contract. In so ruling, the First District found that the Holder Rule preempts Civil Code section 1459.5 which rejected the attorney fee limits., Calif. App. Court: Holder Rule Limits Attorney’s Fees to Amount Paid; Preempts Civil Code § 1459.5

Bar/Professional Activity

  • Admitted to the State Bar of California, 2007
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2021
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2008
  • United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2014
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2014
  • United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2014
  • Vice President of the Irish American Bar Association of San Diego, Inc.
  • Member of the La Jolla Bar Association
  • Member of the Association of Business Trial Attorneys


  • Decision Affirming Judgment on Appeal - Beriones v. IMH Assets Corp., et al., California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Case No. D076507, 2021 WL 386935, 2021
  • Decision Reversing Award of Attorneys' Fees - Dane Elec Corp. USA v. Bodokh (4th Dist. 2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 761., 2019
  • Order Granting Motion to Dismiss - Dane Elec Corp. v. Bodokh, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case. No. SACV-13-02008-MWF (RNBx), 2015 WL 12734786, 2015

Scholarly Lectures/Writings

  • Recently, in JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, the California Court of Appeal, 3rd District, affirmed a trial court's judgment enforcing a co-tenancy provision that allowed a tenant to pay less rent if the shopping center suffered from high vacancy.   The Court of Appeal held that California's limitations on liquidated damages apply only to penalties for breaches of contract. In so ruling, the 3rd District declined to follow the rule announced by the 5th District in Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (Grand Prospect) that a co-tenancy provision reducing rent if a specified condition occurs (e.g., if an anchor tenant is not open or if occupancy drops below a certain level) is an unenforceable penalty unless the reduction has a reasonable relationship to the harm the parties anticipated would be caused thereby., Author, Co-tenancy provisions and conditional payment terms — enforceable only where reasonable?, Westlaw Today, Real Estate And Litigation, 2022

Industry Groups

  • Fiduciaries
  • Property Owners
  • Real Estate Investors
  • Small Businesses
Show More
Office Location for Patrick Tira

1094 Cudahy Place
Suite 112
San Diego, CA 92110

Last Updated: 7/28/2022

Page Generated: 0.61720895767212 sec