In the next case, Heidi, acting as her own attorney, sued Jeffrey on a "Marvin v Marvin" type claim based on pre-marital promises. She pled causes of action for breach of contract, constructive trust, fraud, deceit, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion. Mr. Horwitz was successful in getting that case dismissed at the pleading stage. Heidi did not appeal. [Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC 297845 Heidi Apple v. Jeffrey Apple, and Does I through X, inclusive,]

Heidi's third action with Jeffrey was for dissolution of marriage. Mr. Horwitz does not practice family law, so that case was handled by a different attorney.

In the fourth action, Heidi was the plaintiff in a suit against Jeffrey, both of his parents, two of his limited liability companies, and an attorney who formed the companies, base on claims of negligence, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, constructive trust, accounting and fraud. Mr. Horwitz represented Jeffrey and his parents. He was again successful in getting that case dismissed at the pleading stage. Costs of suit were awarded to Mr. Horwitz's client. [Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC 305769 entitled Heidi Apple v. Jeffrey Apple; Emergent Media, LLC; Apple-Emergent Media, LLC; Standard Blender & Schwarz, LLP; Gary N. Schwarz; Arthur Apple; Dorothy Apple, and Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive,]

In the fifth action with her estranged husband, Heidi, claiming a 50% interest in Apple Entertainment, used the corporate vehicle as the plaintiff in an action against Jeffrey alleging breach of contract, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The gist of the claims were that Jeff wrongfully transferred assets out of the company. That case was also dismissed in the pleading stage, with costs awarded to Jeffrey. Heidi, acting as her own attorney, filed a Notice of Appeal but the appeal was dismissed under Rule 17(a)(1) when she failed to file the required documents. [Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC327103 entitled Apple Entertainment, LLC v. Jeffrey Apple, an Individual; Emergent Media, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Apple-Emergent Media, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive.; Second District Court of Appeal Case Number B188628.]

Doe Company  v.  Roe Manufacturer
Mr. Horwitz represented the purchaser of highly specialized filtration equipment. When the ultra violet light bulbs failed, the filtration equipment became useless. There was no warning that the bulbs had failed, and they failed multiple thousand hours sooner than their warranted life span. The case settled for $225,000.

Doe Pedestrian  v.  Roe Building Owner
Mr. Horwitz represented a pedestrian who slipped and fell on a wet marble entryway to an office building. Mr. Horwitz's client was diagnosed with a comminuted, depressed fracture of his left lateral tibial plateau. He underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery to repair his tibia. A Synthes 6-hole lateral tibial plateau plate with allograft bone were implanted into his left leg. Despite there being a significant issue with regard to liability, the case settled for $200,000.

Doe Passenger  v.  Roe Driver
Mr. Horwitz represented the front seat passenger in a single vehicle accident. The defendant driver was driving too fast for conditions, and when her Cadillac Escalade hit an icy patch upon exiting a turn in the road, the Escalade rolled onto its side, and careened into a tree. The force of the impact crushed the roof line down into the passenger compartment. The driver was unbelted, and fell into the passenger's lap. The roof crushed into the driver. Due to the remoteness of the accident location, the driver and passenger waited for over 4 hours before help arrived. The driver expired from crush injuries while on the passenger's lap. The passenger settled his case against the driver's insurance company for $195,000.

Doe  v.  Roe Delivery Corporation
Following an accident caused by a package delivery company driver who ran a red light and "t" boned a taxi-cab, killing the taxi-cab driver, Mr. Horwitz filed suit on behalf of the decedent's family. The defendant driver was terminated three days after the accident based on his failure to pass a mandatory drug screen. After a mediation where Mr. Horwitz provided evidence that the delivery company failed to follow its internal hiring procedures, failed to test its drivers, failed to screen its new hires, failed to maintain the proper licenses and permits, failed to supervise its drivers and failed to follow post-accident reporting procedures as mandated by the FTSB, the delivery company offered Mr. Horwitz's clients $1 million. On Mr. Horwitz's advice, his clients turned down the offer of $l million. Two days later they were offered and accepted $1,500,000. The decedent was in his late 50's, earning less than $40,000 per year.

Schneider  v.  Katzir Floor and Home Design, Inc.
In 1997, Mr. Horwitz represented the defendant corporation against the plaintiff's claims of negligence and strict liability and claims of loss of consortium brought by the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff fell off scaffolding at a job site and was impaled on a wrought iron fence below. The court denied Mr. Horwitz's Motion for Summary Judgment, but reversed itself after entertaining Mr. Horwitz's Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of Mr. Horwitz's client, effectively dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint. A cross-complaint brought by the scaffolding company against Mr. Horwitz's client was similarly dismissed.

Devore  v.  Massachusetts Casualty
In this case, Mr. Horwitz acted as second chair for defense counsel against a dentist who claimed that he could no longer practice dentistry because he suffered from chronic daily migraine headaches. The disability carrier refused to pay insurance proceeds on the ground the dentist had made misrepresentations in his application and because it challenged the extent of the dentist's disability. Recognizing the potential exposure, the disability carrier settled for $1.5 million during jury deliberations.

Plastic Dress Up Company  v.  Gerber
In a suit based on breach of contract, a Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Mr. Horwitz's client, dismissing its claims. Mr. Horwitz brought a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court, ruling in favor of Mr. Horwitz's client. The case settled thereafter for the full amount requested.

Wagstaff  v.  Farmers Insurance
In 1999, Mr. Horwitz represented a pedestrian who was hit by a speeding vehicle. The defendant driver paid its minimum policy limits to Mr. Horwitz's client. Mr. Horwitz then made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under his client's policy. The insurance company offered $2,500 in full and final settlement of the claims by its insured. Mr. Horwitz successfully negotiated a total settlement package of $271,000 from his client's insurance company.

In a related case, Mr. Horwitz represented the pedestrian's wife and minor child for claims of loss of consortium and a Dillon v Legg type emotional distress claim. Based on Mr. Horwitz's advise, his clients turned down an offer of $11,500 to settle both claims. Later, at a mediation, Farmers reduced its offer to $1,500. A binding arbitration award was entered in favor of Mr. Horwitz's client in the amount of $25,000 to the minor child, and $50,000 to the pedestrian's wife.

Doe Claimant  v.  Roe Bank
In 2000, Mr. Horwitz filed suit against Roe Bank for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. Roe Bank sent Mr. Horwitz's client's bank statements to a third party without consent. After examining these statements, the third party broke off its previously lucrative relationship with Mr. Horwitz's client. After a mediation, Mr. Horwitz's client settled its claims against the bank for $225,000.

Doe Claimant  v.  Roe.com Corporation
In 2000, Mr. Horwitz represented a products distributor against a nationally recognized "dot corn" company for breach of an exclusive distribution agreement. Mr. Horwitz's client claimed it had fulfilled its significant obligations under the agreement, when, for no reason, the dot.com company refused to use its services and failed to make the contractually agreed payments. Mr. Horwitz settled the case for $175,000. Three weeks after receiving the settlement funds, the dot.com company closed down.

ASPC  v.  Marshall
In 2001, Mr. Horwitz represented the plaintiff on causes of action for breach of contract and for monies owed based on professional services rendered. After mediating the matter Mr. Horwitz's client settled its claims for $137,000.

Jane Doe  v.  Keystone
Mr. Horwitz represented a female who walked off a step in a child's playground, suffering a broken leg. Keystone defended the case on the basis that it was not liable for the injuries, that the step was open and obvious, that the play structure was built to code and that one step was not inherently dangerous. Mr. Horwitz presented evidence that the original architect had walked off the job citing safety concerns during the building of the playground structure. Mr. Horwitz also produced the original architectural plans which called for a level surface at the site of the step down, with proposed testimony from the engineer that a concern for heightened safety at the child's play area lead him to design the playground without a step down. The case settled after a second day of mediation for $135,000.

Logudice  v.  Continental C. Express
In 1997, Mr. Horwitz won a jury verdict in an auto versus 18 wheel truck accident. Mr. Horwitz's client, who managed a car wash, claimed neck and back injuries as a result of the accident. The defendants disputed liability and damages. Defendants had two sub-rosa video tapes of the plaintiff washing cars after the accident. Mr. Horwitz was successful in withholding the more damaging video tape from the jury. Mr. Horwitz's client received a verdict of $126,000. This verdict was upheld after oral argument before the Court of Appeals.

Doe Family Trust  v.  Roe Securities Company
In 2001, Mr. Horwitz settled a case by way of mediation against a securities firm for his client's family trust. The broker had, contrary to written instructions, placed the retired clients into unsuitable mutual funds. Mr. Horwitz also presented claims based on churning/excessive trading and a violation of the "know your client" rules. The case settled for $120,000.

Plastic Dress-Up Company  v.  Applied Membrane Technology
Mr. Horwitz represented the plaintiff in a breach of warranty action based on the purchase of large manufacturing equipment. The binding arbitration resulted in an award slightly in excess of $100,000 to Mr. Horwitz's client.

Prudential Property & Casualty Co.  v.  Barragan
In 1998, Mr. Horwitz represented C&C Adjusting Co., as a cross-defendant on causes of action for breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation and as a cross-complainant on causes of action for breach of contract and money owed. After a 6 day trial, Mr. Horwitz's client was granted a defense verdict on the cross-complaint filed against it, and was awarded the full amount requested on its cross-complaint. An appeal by the defendant / cross-complainants was dismissed and Mr. Horwitz's client was paid in full.

Soll  v.  Simon
In 1995, Mr. Horwitz brought an action for breach of contract on behalf of his client. He also defended a cross-complaint arising out of the same transaction against his client. After a 5 day trial, Mr. Horwitz's client was awarded the full amount sought on its complaint, and was awarded a defense verdict on the cross-complaint.

Pastor  v.  ERI International
In 1997, Mr. Horwitz represented several defendants against claims brought in the United States District Court, Southern District. The plaintiff filed claims seeking relief for: a permanent injunction and claims based on the Sherman Act, 5 U.S.C. §1-7 (Conspiracy), 1996 Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. §1832 (Stealing secrets), and malicious destruction of business (Business and Professions Code §17045-17048). Mr. Horwitz successfully convinced the Court to dismiss the plaintiffs case as to all defendants on a motion made under Federal Rule 12(b)(6).