James M. Jimenez
Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Woodland Hills, CA
James M. Jimenez is one of the most effective and outstanding business and real estate trial lawyers in California. His primary focus is to serve as champion to his clients in critical "bet-the-company" business and real estate litigation. Mr. Jimenez has an exceptional ability to quickly grasp his clients' needs, design and create effective and winning legal strategies and aggressively implement those strategies to achieve victory. Mr. Jimenez’s outstanding reputation among lawyers, judges and arbitrators for tenacity and brilliance in the courtroom begins with his meticulous preparation and is enhanced by his compelling eloquence and outstanding cross-examination skills. He possesses a unique and highly successful ability to understand, relate to and strongly connect with juries.
Mr. Jimenez began his legal career in 1980, clerked for a Federal Court of Appeals judge and was highly recruited by, and served as a lawyer for several years at, the national powerhouse firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Jim has more than 30 years' experience representing entrepreneurs and businesses in critically important litigation, arbitrations and mediations, as well as complex business and real estate transactions.
Mr. Jimenez earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center where he served as an editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. He also earned a MBA-Finance degree from the University of Rochester Simon Graduate School of Business.
About James M. Jimenez
First Admitted: 1980, California
Professional Webpage: http://pacificbusinesslaw.com/counsel.htm
- Georgetown University Law Center, J.D.
- University of Rochester, B.A.
- University of Rochester's Simon School of Business, M.B.A. Finance
- After Jimenez prevailed on behalf of his clients Zareh and Aida Narghizian before the California Court of Appeal, Second District in May 2010, the opposition filed a Petition for Review before the California Supreme Court. Jimenez filed a scintillating opposition brief to the Petition in the Supreme Court. On September 1, 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld Jimenez's position and denied the opposition's Petition for Review, thus upholding the order awarding more than $187,000 to Jimenez's clients.
- On July 1, 2011, James M. Jimenez successfully negotiated a settlement on behalf of one of his real estate clients who had a substantial arbitration claim filed against it. The claimant sought an accounting and unspecified damages that, if claimant were successful, could have resulted in more than $1 million arbitration award against his client. Jimenez suggested a creative settlement strategy, developed the legal architecture for the settlement and drafted the written settlement agreement. Pursuant to the signed settlement agreement, the claimant agreed to forego an accounting and Jimenez's clients did not have to pay even one dollar to settle the arbitration claim.
- On May 12, 2010, James M. Jimenez prevailed on behalf of his clients Zareh and Aida Narghizian before the California Court of Appeal, Second District. After extensive briefing and an outstanding oral argument by Jimenez before the court, the Court of Appeal upheld an order awarding more than $187,000 to Jimenez's clients and dismissed his opponent's additional appeal of another order in favor of Jimenez's clients. Fabbio v. Narghizian, California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, Case No. 2d Civil No. B209868. (2010 WL 1888709; unpublished opinion.)
- On June 8, 2011, James M. Jimenez defended his clients, who included a retirement trust and several limited liability companies, and persuasively argued before the Orange County Superior Court against the imposition of a $3.5 million writ of attachment against his clients sought by plaintiff Gilmore Bank (Gilmore Bank, et al. v. Cindy Dalrymple, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011-00452056). If Jimenez had not succeeded, and the writ of attachment had been granted, his clients would have been deprived of substantially all of their assets and their ability to defend against the multi-million dollar lawsuit would have been severely, if not irretrievably, impaired.
- James M. Jimenez successfully represented defendants Bacchus Vineyards and Sam Paregian in a lengthy jury trial that spanned 25 days over 2 1/2 months and which resulted in a jury verdict in his clients' favor after only 2 hours of jury deliberations. (Ennis Commercial Properties, LLC, Ennis Homes Inc. and HA Devco Inc. v. Sam Paregian, Bacchus Vineyards, Victoria Hepburn, and related cross-action, Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 372767). The jury returned a general verdict in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs and intervenor on all legal claims. Based on the jury's general verdict in favor of defendants, the court found in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs on the issue of specific performance. In its Statement of Decision, the court specifically made the following findings in denying plaintiffs' claim for specific performance: (i) defendant had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that no valid contract was entered into as a result of plaintiffs' fraud in the inducement; (ii) defendant had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that no valid contract was entered into as a result of a unilateral mistake of defendant; and (iii) even if a valid contract was entered into between plaintiffs and defendant, plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant breached the contract. James M. Jimenez successfully represented defendants in post trial motions, including a motion for attorneys' fees. The trial judge awarded defendants $1,890,245 in attorneys' fees and costs. The jury verdict and judgment in favor of defendants were upheld on appeal on June 18, 2009. The Court of Appeal substantially upheld the judgment for attorneys' fees and costs on January 13, 2010. In June 2003, plaintiffs Ennis Commercial Properties, LLC, Ennis Homes Inc. and HA Devco Inc., entered into a Final Land Purchase Agreement ("contract") with defendants and cross-complainants Bacchus Vineyards and Dr. Sam Paregian to purchase approximately 39 acres of undeveloped farmland in the Modesto area that plaintiffs planned to develop as a commercial shopping center ("property"). Gallagher & Miersch Inc., the plaintiff-in-intervention, acted as plaintiffs' broker. The purchase price was approximately $10,000,000. Defendants contended that the contract provided that in addition to the cash purchase price, plaintiffs agreed to transfer back to defendants at closing a freestanding parcel of property in the development ("pad"). Plaintiffs claimed that the parties signed an addendum to the contract ("addendum") at the time that the contract was executed stating that the purchase price did not include a pad. In June 2005, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to resell the property to Wal-Mart for approximately $20 million to be conducted by way of a "double" or "concurrent" escrow. In essence, plaintiffs and Wal-Mart opened an escrow account with one title company ("Wal-Mart escrow") and planned to use the purchase funds from the Wal-Mart escrow to pay defendants for the property. Wal-Mart deposited the purchase funds into the escrow on June 30, 2005. The funds necessary to purchase the property from defendants were never transferred from the Wal-Mart escrow into the separate escrow account that had been opened between plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that the purchase funds were not transferred into the escrow because defendants refused to sign and submit the documents necessary to close escrow and effectuate the transfer. Defendants claimed that they refused to sign and submit the documents into the parties' escrow because they had no assurance that the purchase funds were available to the escrow between the parties. Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging breach of contract and fraud, sought the remedy of specific performance, money damages (approximately $22 million at the time of trial), and filed a notice of pending action (lis pendens) against the property. Intervenor Gallagher & Miersch Inc. sued defendants, seeking monetary damages in excess of $500,000, the amount of the commission that it would have received if defendant Bacchus had sold the property to plaintiffs. Defendants Bacchus Vineyards and Dr. Paregian filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs and two individuals, Robert W. Henry and Ben Ennis, alleging rescission of contract and damages based on fraud in the inducement with respect to the pad and ability to close, rescission of contract based on mutual mistakes, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and quiet title.Defendants claimed that Robert W. Henry and Ben Ennis defrauded it at the time the contract was signed, contending that plaintiffs intentionally misrepresented material terms of the contract, including whether the purchase price for the property included a pad. Defendants contended that the reference in the contract to the purchase including a pad was not in the "introductory language" of the contract but was contained in the section of the contract in which the purchase price was specified. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs and defendants agreed to one change in the contract at the time the contract was signed that pertained to the net acreage of the property not being reduced by more than two acres for right of way purposes. That clause was initialed by Dr. Paregian, Henry and Ennis and was set forth on a one page piece of paper that was prepared by Bacchus' broker. Defendants (including Bacchus' broker) asserted that the broker prepared some short typewritten notes in which she compared some of the terms contained in the contract that Henry had prepared on behalf of plaintiffs to an offer that defendants had received from another developer earlier on the day the contract was ultimately signed. Defendants contended that only one paragraph of the broker notes was initialed by all the parties and that defendants were not agreeing to modify the contract with respect to the purchase price not including a pad. Defendants contended that the sentence in the broker notes, "The purchase price does not include a pad" referred to the competing offer of the other developer in which no pad was offered. Defendants also contended that Robert W. Henry admitted at deposition and at trial that he wrote the phrase "Addendum A" on the top of the broker-prepared notes after Bacchus initialed and signed the notes. Defendant Paregian claimed that he did not see "Addendum A" written at the top of the notes before he initialed and signed the notes, that he believed that only the initialed sentence on the broker notes pertaining to the net acreage was agreed to by the parties and that he did not intend to amend the contract to delete the pad from the purchase price of the property.Bacchus contended that plaintiffs were not able to close escrow in a timely manner because plaintiffs did not have the money to pay the purchase price, had not made arrangements to transfer Wal-Mart's money out of the Wal-Mart escrow into the escrow between plaintiffs and defendant, refused to tender the pad, and put improper conditions on the close of escrow. Defendants contended that they were defrauded in the inducement of the contract and that Bacchus was justified in not signing and delivering documents into the escrow between plaintiffs and Bacchus because plaintiffs did not have money available in the escrow between the parties in order to close the purchase and sale of the property., 2007
- On December 10, 2010, James M. Jimenez successfully defeated a key motion on behalf of his clients Zareh and Aida Narghizian before the Los Angeles Superior Court (Fabbio v. Narghizian, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC287492), that was filed by plaintiff in which his clients' opponent attempted to keep a substantial portion of the $187,000 that had been awarded to Jimenez' clients and which previous order was upheld by the California Court of Appeal, Second District. Jimenez prevailed in his argument that his clients were entitled to the full $187,000 without any deduction whatsoever, and plaintiff was ordered to comply with the Court's previous orders.
- Member, State Bar of California, Business Law Section
- Board of Governors, California Trial Lawyers Association (now Consumer Attorneys Association of California), 1992 - 1994
- Member, American Bar Association
- Board of Governors, Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association (now Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles), 1993 - 1995
- Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
- Member, State Bar of California, Real Estate Section
- Business Court Committee, State Bar of California, Business Law Section
- Finalist in Georgetown's prestigious Moot Court Competition
- Editor, Georgetown Law Journal, Georgetown University Law Center
- Computer Rentals
- Real Estate Development
- Real Estate Investments
Last Updated: 5/15/2022