Allen Matkins
ProfessionalsIndustries & ServicesNews & InsightsCareers

Manage Subscriptions

San Francisco

T(415) 273-7453

Education

  • J.D., Pepperdine Law

  • B.S., Pepperdine University

Bar Admissions

  • California

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, Northern and Eastern Districts of California

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington

Michael J. Betz

Partner

Michael is a partner in our San Francisco office and leader of our Jury Trials practice. Michael’s practice focuses on complex commercial and corporate litigation conducted in California state and district courts. He is an experienced trial lawyer who litigates insurance recovery, complex technology, corporate, breach of contract, partnership, limited liability company, unfair business practice, tortious interference, construction defect, employment, professional liability, real estate, and land use cases. Many of his cases have shaped the law in a particular field and received significant attention. He has a broad spectrum of clients, including corporate entities in both traditional and emerging industries, such as FinTech, as well as individuals.

    • Competing Businesses (2024). Following a bench trial before one of San Francisco’s most respected complex judges, defended claims for fraud, Labor Code violations and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 (albeit Plaintiff was awarded a fraction of the claimed damages).
    • Sellers Prevailing in Arbitration (2023). Obtained complete arbitration defense ruling (and an award of attorneys’ fees) in favor of Sellers against claims by a Buyer for the return of a deposit made in conjunction with the terminated sale of a multi-million dollar property at Martis Camp.
    • Defrauded Investors (2023). Obtained a $5 million jury verdict in favor of defrauded investors in addition to a $10 million punitive damage award. After seven years of contentious litigation, appeals resulting in published opinions, COVID interruptions, and a mistrial, a downtown Los Angeles jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our clients.
    • Catastrophic Injury Jury Trial (2022). Obtained a defense judgment of $0.0 for a Fortune 500 company in a catastrophic injury case in which plaintiffs sought in excess of $75 million in damages against our client. This case was one of California’s first civil jury trials since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of adapted litigation strategy to accommodate novel trial hurdles as result of virtual and in court social distancing policies.
    • Horse Racing Operation. Obtained multi-million dollar jury verdict for a renowned horse racing operation in a condemnation case fraught with constitutional issues.
    • Defense Contractor. Obtained decision after trial in favor of one of the world’s largest defense contractors against landlord claiming the parties underlying lease for a large manufacturing facility needed to be reformed.
    • Private Utility Company. Obtained trial victory on behalf of a private utility company in a case involving a $400 million water desalination project. The client sought to void certain contracts implementing the project based on a conflict of interest with a government official involved. Following a hard-fought trial covered extensively in the press, the San Francisco Superior Court's complex division voided the contracts and awarded the client a majority of its attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the prosecution and defense of the case.
    • Financial Institution. Obtained dismissal of a $25 million fraud claim against founder of one of the world's largest financial institutions.
    • Developer. Obtained a judgment after trial in favor of a reputable developer who the Court of Appeal found violated California’s Williamson Act by selling parcels of an approximately 14,000-acre ranch in Humboldt County. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision the County sought approximately $100 million in fines and penalties against our client. After trial the Court awarded $200,000 only to the County (.2% of the amount sought) and ordered the County to recognize the allegedly unlawful transfers as requested in our cross-complaint.
    • Confidential Client. Obtained an approximately $7 million dollar verdict on claims for breach of guarantee and a defense verdict on lender liability based claims.
    • Lender. Obtained dismissal of $100 million claim by an individual for lender liability against publicly-traded hedge fund.
    • Consortium of Developers. Obtained a $6.2 million jury verdict against the City of San Jose for breaching a contract with a consortium of highly respected developers which called for the expeditious processing of the developers' land use applications.
    • Lender. Complete defense of lender liability claims and approximately $5 million dollar jury verdict against borrower based on unique "tort of another" theory.
    • Contractor. Obtained a $3.6 million jury verdict against the City and County of San Francisco for violating a contractor's constitutional rights as well as a significant attorneys' fees award.
    • Confidential Client. Obtained an approximately $5 million dollar jury verdict on a cross-complaint for tortious interference.
    • Utility Company. Obtained dismissal of fraud claim in federal court against president of a subsidiary of publicly-traded water company.
    • Confidential Client. Obtained an arbitration award pursuant to which the firm's client was awarded every penny sought in the underlying contractual dispute as well as all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the action and for which the client obtained full recovery of the award.
    • Utility Company. Obtained dismissal of qui tam claims grounded in alleged environmental contamination against high-profile utility company.
    • Limited Partner of a Partnership. Obtained an arbitration award on behalf of a limited partner of a partnership which owns a national football league franchise.
    • Lender. Obtained arbitration award in favor of a hedge fund against contractor for being unlicensed, leading to a multi-million dollar restitution order.
    • Radio Stations. Obtained arbitration award in favor of conglomerate of radio stations in Maui, Hawaii, which absolved the company from approximately $16 million of claimed liability and allowed it to retain premier radio stations.
    • Landlord. Obtained judgment after trial in favor of a landlord. The defendant then paid every penny of the award and a majority of attorneys' fees. The case was one of first impression concerning whether a single-family home is subject to California's Rent Control Ordinance.
    • Title Company. Obtained affirmative summary judgment against one of the nation's largest title companies. A federal court found the title company failed to discharge its fiduciary duty to its client and was therefore liable as a matter of law.
    • Confidential Client. An approximately $1 million dollar judgment concerning the negligent manufacturing of LCD display monitors.
    • Several multi-million dollar settlements
    • Litigation matters resulting in published opinions of nation-wide importance
      • RREEF Am. REIT II Corp, YYYY v. Samsara Inc., 91 Cal.App.5th609 (2023) (holding, as a matter of first impression, that a letter of credit is not a security interest in the defendant’s property for the purpose of a writ of attachment).

      • Cal.-Am. Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 86 Cal.App.5th 1272 (2022) (retracing salient summary judgment procedures and establishing rules concerning compliance with the Government Tort Claim Act for claims predicated on void contracts)

      • Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC et al. v. Direct Action Everywhere, 81 Cal.App.5th 82, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 768 (2022) (confirming California pleading requirements for alleging vicarious liability against a defendant in the anti-SLAPP procedural context)
      • Martis Camp Cmty. Ass'n v. Cty. of Placer, 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 729 (2020) (establishing CEQA guidelines for the review of an existing project)
      • Behunin v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty. ex rel. Schwab, 9 Cal.App.5th 833, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 (2017) (case of first impression concerning the implication of the attorney-client privilege over communications with a public relations firm)
      • Cal.-Am. Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 18 Cal.App.5th 571, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 110 (2017)
      • Cal.-Am. Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 2 Cal.App.5th 748, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 439 (2016) (establishing laws concerning voiding contracts which violate Government Code 1090)
      • Breslin City & County of San Francisco, 146 Cal.App.4th 1064, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 14 (2007)
      • Republic Props. Corp. v. Mission West Props., LP, 391 Md. 732, 895 A.2d 1006 (2006)

News & Insights

Manage Subscriptions
View All

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram

This publication is made available by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP for educational purposes only to convey general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website you acknowledge there is no attorney client relationship between you and Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. This publication should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney applied to your circumstances. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Full Disclaimer