The real estate industry has been an important component of the San Diego economy for many years and the Firm's attorneys have been involved in real estate litigation for as long as they have practiced law.  Following are examples of real estate cases handled by the Firm's attorneys: 

  • Michael L. Kirby was the lead trial attorney for multiple plaintiffs in a four month jury trial involving a scheme by a San Diego real estate developer to defraud unsophisticated and elderly investor clients out of their life savings.  Kirby obtained a jury verdict in excess of $20 million against both the real estate developer and a national title/escrow company.
  • Michael L. Kirby and Jason M. Kirby represented a national real estate developer in its dispute with an adjacent land owner that was claiming an easement right that cut through the middle of the adjacent parcel.  They successfully resolved the litigation and cleared the easement, which made possible the development and construction of the new regional FBI center in San Diego.
  • Michael L. Kirby and Jason M. Kirby represented a real estate developer against the intended tenant of a build-to-suit commercial building in Carlsbad.  They successfully tried an arbitration involving the allocation of impact fees and were able to recover the client's attorneys fees. 
  • Jason M. Kirby represented a real estate developer in pursuing his option rights after the children and beneficiaries of a deceased property owner granting the option rights passed away.  The children and beneficiaries raised numerous arguments, including arguments that the options violated the Subdivision Map Act.  After limited discovery and motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication pending, the case was favorably resolved permitting Kirby's client to exercise his options to acquire title and move ahead with his intended project.
  • Michael L. Kirby and Jason M. Kirby defended national real estate developers in litigation filed in litigation filed by a disgruntled investors regarding the management of three commercial properties that were intended to be developed prior to the historic downturn in the real estate market.  The case was resolved through a confidential settlement agreement.