Ronald R. Rossi - San Jose, CA

Overview

Specializing in the practice of Real Estate and Business Litigation, Ron Rossi's expertise amounts to tremendous success both in and out of the legal profession. As a decorated attorney, he has prevailed in countless lawsuits, handling incredibly diverse disputes and transactions. As an expert on Silicon Valley Real Estate, Ron has served on many committees for the California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.) and has represented the National Association of Realtors (N.A.R.). Furthermore, Mr. Rossi has shared his insight through a variety of real estate law courses at a local law school, junior colleges, and continuing education programs for attorneys.

For ten years, Ron was published bi-weekly in the San Jose Mercury News, single-handedly creating the "Real Law" column in order to offer accessible legal advice. Readers appreciated his insight on both commonplace issues and unusual hiccups in the Bay Area Real Estate market, helping buyers, sellers, and agents avoid preventable litigation.

Ron's trademark work ethic and remarkable ambition have been striking through his entire career. Starting with his part-time practice of selling and managing real estate during law school, Ron continues to go above and beyond as a founding member of the firm. Today, he is happily married and the proud father to three adult children. He continues to live in Saratoga after 25 years and enjoys skiing, weight lifting, boxing, and backpacking.

Notable Litigation

ASNM, LLC, et al. v. Jane Sun, et al. (Santa Clara County Case No. 19CV360605)

Ron served as counsel in a suit brought on behalf of Plaintiffs who were commercial tenants at a property owned by Defendant landlords. Plaintiffs’ claims were for breach of lease and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, arising out of Defendants’ unreasonable refusal and delay in consenting to certain subleases. The jury found unanimously in favor of our clients after the 2.5 week trial, awarding them damages of $2,664,000 after less than three hours of deliberation. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $9,000,000 after less than forty minutes of deliberation.

Jewell v. Phillipps, et al. (Santa Cruz County Case No. 21CV00986)

Ron represented two homeowners in Boulder Creek against neighboring property owners who had sued our clients for breach of an easement agreement for ingress and egress over the neighboring property. Our clients maintained a cross-claim for harassment, elder abuse, invasion of privacy, and assault. After a five-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of our clients, awarding them damages of $165,000 for pure emotional distress, and also made a finding that our clients were entitled to punitive damages. Before the bifurcated punitive damages phase began, the parties settled on confidential terms.

Liu v. Wong, et al. (Santa Clara County Case No. 20CV367132)

Ron represented a borrower in a complicated claim of usury law violations against a private lender. The defense claimed that the subject loan was made or arranged by a licensed real estate broker as an exemption to usury. This defense was rejected by the judge and our client prevailed after a one week bench trial.

Nvidia Corporation, Inc. v. Extreme Networks, Inc. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-01-CV-803483).

Ron defended a multinational software company in a lease dispute, reaching a confidential yet notable settlement.

Lewis v. Pico Ranch, Inc., et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-02-CV812971).

Ron represented a purchaser of commercial property in San Jose who sued the seller for fraud and concealment. The seller failed to disclose that the standing tenant was going out of business and rescinding its long-term lease, concealing the tenant's letter announcing its shutdown. After a two-week trial, the court tentatively ruled that the principals were liable for fraud and damages in excess of $1 million. Sellers agreed to settle for the full amount plus all attorneys' fees before the court rendered its final opinion.

Smith v. DiNapoli (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 1-03-CV009914).

Ron represented the seller of high-end residential property suitable for subdividing against the real estate broker who acted as a dual agent in the transaction (representing both the buyer and the seller). The agent failed to properly prepare the contract providing seller would be paid additional compensation upon approval of the lot split. Seller recovered almost $1 million from the broker.

DeMattai, et al. in re: 506 University Avenue (non-litigation).

Regarding the purchase and development of a Los Gatos property, Ron assisted a major building contractor in buying out his partners' interests.

City of Cupertino v. Blue Pheasant (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 104CV026233).

Ron settled a lease renewal dispute between the tenant restaurant owner and the landlord, City of Cupertino. The dispute was over a provision in the lease which required the restaurant to shut down before 11:00 pm daily, hence costing the business $300K annually.

Krach v. Tut (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. CV139016).

Ron represented the buyers of a multi-million-dollar Santa Cruz property and obtained a judgement against the sellers in a breach-of-contract action. The sellers were four family members holding power of attorney for each other. One family member signed the purchase contract with our clients, then claimed that all family members were required to sign the contract. They then attempted to sell the property to another buyer for a higher purchase price.

Prevedello v. Marcus & Millichap (binding arbitration).

Ron prosecuted an action by an apartment building owner against a large commercial broker for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the sale of two apartment buildings in Sacramento. After the apartment building owner received an interim award of $1.5 million plus attorneys' fees, the parties reached a confidential agreement.

Chen v. Luu (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV 761041).

Ron defended the owner a shopping center against a class action suit by 165 tenant seekings damages in excess of $20 million. The case settled for nuisance value after two weeks of trial.

Zamani v. Simons (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV780611).

Ron represented a business seller in an action against a shopping center landlord for unreasonably refusing to consent to a lease assignment. The firm obtained a jury trial award of $90,000 for general damages and a punitive damages award of $400,000, which was successfully upheld on appeal.

Page Mill Properties v. Luzon (San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV457866).

Ron represented a broker who entered into distrustful commission agreements with a developer's LLC. The goal of the LLC was to acquire unlisted properties in East Palo Alto for eventual high-rises and condominium conversions. Ron's client fulfilled his part of the deal by bringing the developer nearly 40 properties; however, the LLC refused to pay the agreed-upon commissions, breached the agreement, and fired Ron's client. After two years of complex litigation, the parties reached a confidential settlement resolving the property acquisition and unpaid commission issues.

Blickman Turkus v. M-F Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-03-CV-814344).

Ron successfully defended major developer, Mozart Development Company, against a false commission claim. The claim alleged that the major developer signed a written lease, yet refused to occupy the premises or pay rent two years later. The developer was able to defeat the commission claim by convincing the Trial Court, in two separate Summary Adjudication Motions, that the term rent commencement in the Commission Agreement with the broker constituted a condition precedent of payment of the commission and required actual payments of rent by the tenant which had never been paid.

Hartzheim v. Valley Land (binding arbitration).

Ron's client, a commercial tenant in Auto Mall, exercised its option to extend the term of the lease. The lease provided for a certain method of calculating the rent during the option period. A dispute arose between the parties as to the fair market value of rent. After a 2-day binding arbitration, Ron's clients secured a rental rate in accordance with the evidence presented by our office and significantly less than that proposed by the landlord.