MING-HSIANG KAO VS. JOY HOLIDAY, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number CIV509729.



Brian Soriano from the Law Office of Brian E. Soriano represents the defendants.




Plaintiff alleged he was an employee and not paid all owed wages, in addition to other related claims. Plaintiff sought $117,000 in owed wages.




The case proceeded to trial and the judge awarded plaintiff $58,284, or about half of what plaintiff originally sought. In our opinion the judge said wages were not owed but $58,284 was a proper equitable amount of compensation for work done without payment.




Brian Soriano's office then filed an appeal. So did the plaintiff.

Oops.

The court of appeal reversed and ruled plaintiff won the case and was entitled to owed wages.

Additionally, the court of appeal awarded plaintiff costs for having to file an appeal.




The judge then awarded plaintiff $95,203.70 against Brian Soriano's clients.




Yikes!

This was just for legal fees and costs for the appeal.

Still to be awarded are:

1. Plaintiff's owed wages.

2. Additional attorney fees and costs.

This is just what Mr. Soriano's clients must pay the plaintiff and his lawyers. If plaintiff's legal fees are about $100,000 it is reasonable to assume Soriano has charged his clients a substantial amount.

Although the case is still ongoing as this article is being written, in our opinion Soriano's clients are looking at a massive loss.

- $95,000 in legal fees so far to plaintiff
- Wages owed to plaintiff
- Additional legal fees and costs to plaintiff
- Fees charged by the Law Office of Brian Soriano

In Lawzilla's opinion the total loss will be substantial.

Plaintiff then levied on the Soriano clients business and personal bank accounts:




Imagine more than $70,000 suddenly disappearing from your bank account.

Then, if the legal ruling was not bad enough, the judge indicated in another order that the Brian Soriano firm made attorney mistakes.

A motion was brought to try and vacate the $95,000 award. It was denied.

First, the judge said the motion brought by Soriano was "improper".

Second, the judge said Brian Soriano "never raised the argument" and "conceded the opposite".

Third, that since Soriano failed to raise an issue it was "waived" for his clients.






Lawzilla Commentary: It is our opinion that if Soriano was correct that the $95,000 award should have been vacated, then it is a bad situation when the judge suggests attorney mistake in failing to raise the issue may prevent the award from being vacated. On the other hand, if the $95,000 was properly awarded then why was Soriano spending legal time and fees on a motion and arguing the issue - especially one they had waived?

Brian Soriano was admitted to the California Bar in 1996. Bar Number 183865.

Law Office of Brian Soriano
1801 Bush Street Suite 304
San Francisco, California 94109

Law School: Golden Gate University