Elizabeth Nigro & Associates, Apc

08/05/2022

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida called on China to immediately halt its military exercises around Taiwan, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the U.S. won’t let Beijing isolate Taiwan.

12/09/2021

Our fantastic team.

12/09/2021

Our new firm photos, we’re looking tan, rested and ready for 2022. 

11/27/2021

New firm photos coming soon!

01/01/2021

09/02/2020

Some great ideas.

It takes luck, creativity and a fresh look at your network of contacts to find a job in the worst labor market in more than a decade.

07/10/2020

I have been so consumed by trying to keep up with court closures and the new rules I have not posted in a while. I want to reassure all of my clients and the public that our firm is fully adapting to the COVID-19 closures. I have taken 8 to 10 Zoom depositions. I have tried several hearings recently before a private judge in Los Angeles wearing a face shield the entire time. Not saying any of this is easy but I have a great plan to keep pushing along my client’s cases because justice delayed is just denied. Our office did not close down one day during the shut down because we provide essential services. We have seen the explosion of domestic violence cases and we are here to service the public.

05/19/2020

We have a ruling from Judge Nathan Scott in Muller v. Newsom. The petition for writ of mandate requested Governor Newsom be prohibited from mandating all Orange County beaches be indefinitely closed. The court had encouraged the parties to work together to strike a balance between competing interests and reach a reasonable compromise. Since the beaches have reopened for active recreation e.g. walking, running, bike riding, surfing, etc., the issue narrowed to the continued restriction on sitting or standing on the beach. The court found the petitioners failed to meet their burden of showing a narrow restriction on passive beach use during a pandemic is unconstitutional. But at footnote 1 of the statement of decision, the court notes the petitioners conceded that the Governor's stay-at-home order "does not direct any mandatory compliance with public health directives."

Good to know if you plan on heading to the beach this weekend with your family. Stay safe.

11/23/2019

Here’s an update on Bhaskar v. Farmer’s & Merchant’s Bank, our $1,177,500 jury verdict, which we won despite multiple rulings by the court, during trial, favoring the bank. The court granted the bank’s motion for new trial, despite a unanimous jury verdict finding F&M negligent. Only the ruling was entered in the minutes of the court one day late. Oops. Our motion to vacate the order granting new trial set for Monday. Judgment remains in place bearing interest pending appeal either way. Justice does not come easy.

11/23/2019

Yesterday a Vista Superior Court judge found that a single phone call argument between the parties, where the husband admitted yelling “a little” and using one or two swear words—with no threats of violence—constituted “disturbing the peace” domestic violence. Husband had no criminal record, and over the course of a long marriage there was no record of calls to the police. Wife strategically filed for the DVRO while in the midst of contentious divorce proceedings in Orange County. Her lawyers from OC weren’t involved in the DV case in Vista, and there had been no mention of DV in the OC case. The judge stated the DV should have been filed in OC. Noting no criminal history, the court issued only a 90 day DVRO, most likely to keep the peace during divorce proceedings. Fun fact: wife had illegally recorded the phone call at issue and failed to provide a certified translation of the call. Take away: hire yourself a good lawyer if you’re going through a divorce. Connivance and treachery is the name of the game, for many parties going through divorce.

08/18/2019

Finally! Judgment entered against F&M Bank.

08/09/2019

An update on our firm's verdict June 7th against Farmer's & Merchant's Bank of Long Beach. Rather than accept the jury's verdict, the bank filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. That's ok, because the court denied plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest on the $1,177,500 verdict--and we have filed our own motion for new trial on that issue. The battle wages on, prejudgment interest will more than double the jury's verdict. This is an issue worth taking up to the court of appeal.