Deborah Davis v. Carl Davis
Solano County 2009

Deborah Davis lived with Carl Davis off and on over a span of 30 years, but lived with Mr. Davis only 12-15 of those years.  They had an adult child together.

In 2006 they married for 11 months.

Deborah Davis then filed for divorce and filed a separate civil action claiming that Carl Davis promised to support her for her entire life, and to share all of his assets, including three homes, his pension, and retirement plans with Deborah Davis.

Deborah Davis claimed that she was entitled to these assets under the holding in the Lee Marvin case, the Johnny Cochrane case, the Mag case (the owner of Mag-Lite Flashlights).

Deborah Davis and her attorney failed to recognize that these appeals cases recognized the right to be claims.  However in all of these cases, they ultimately lost at trial.

Deborah Davis sought $5,000,000 in damages for breach of oral contract.  She claimed to be a co-owner of all of the assets Mr. Davis had accumulated since 1980.

At trial, it was revealed that Ms. Davis had been convicted of welfare fraud (obtaining assistance fraudulently).  At the time she was receiving welfare, and child support, she was living with Carl Davis in the 1990's.

In addition, it was revealed that Ms. Davis sought and obtained child support orders against Mr. Davis during the time of their alleged relationship, and she indicated that she owned no real estate in court paperwork submitted for the purpose of asking for child support.

After a 4 week trial, the court ruled against Deborah Davis, and found that Ms. Davis' testimony was not credible.

Carl Davis obtained a judgment against Ms. Davis for his legal costs in an amount of approximately $12,000.00.

Mr. Davis' divorce is still pending.

Germano v. Mr & Mrs. F.
Solano County 2007

Unsuspecting homeowners rented their home to a middle-aged couple who indicated that they were homeless and needed a place to stay for the night.  The home was not ready for rental, but the couple was permitted to stay for one evening and then they would have to find another place to stay until the rental was ready.

The couple never left the home, did not pay any rent, began calling the City claiming housing violations, and demanded relocation expenses of $7,500 under the municipal code in the City of Vallejo.  After a two day trial, the court evicted the couple and entered a judgment of $4,000 against them.

At trial it was discovered that the couple had been evicted multiple times and had a history of filing multiple lawsuits. 

The couple was evicted again just a few months later, after they found another trusting homeowner.

People v. Hollingsworth
Solano County 2006

Ms. Hollingsworth was driving in the City of Vallejo in 2004, when an officer stopped her due to faded license plate tags.  He also claimed that he tracked Ms. Hollingsworth's car for 1 city block and that she was traveling 5 miles faster than the speed limit. 

The officer was assigned specifically to look for drug activity that night. 

After stopping Ms. Hollingsworth's car, he then claimed to smell marijuana.  He then searched Ms. Hollingsworth, looking for marijuana, finding methamphetamines.  No marijuana was found in the car or on Ms. Hollingsworth.

The trial court failed to suppress the evidence due to the illegal search, and Ms. Hollingsworth was convicted.

The appellate court found that the officer did not have probable cause to search Ms. Hollingsworth's person, in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   The matter was returned to the trial court and ultimately dismissed.

People v. Watson
Solano County 2006

Mr. Watson was involved in a fight with another employee at work, Mr. Arcon.  Mr. Arcon allegedly had a history of threatening a supervisor at work, and there were witnesses who were prepared to testify that Mr. Arcon had a temper so bad that other employees were afraid of him.

Mr. Arcon and Mr. Watson were involved in an argument which led to Mr. Watson hitting Mr. Arcon in order to stop what Mr. Watson felt was an impending physical attack, after Mr. Arcon blocked an aisle in a warehouse with his forklift and was yelling so intently that spittle was hitting Mr. Watson's face and that he was acting in self-defense.

The court would not permit the witnesses to testify, ruling that it was impermissible character evidence, and Mr. Watson was convicted of misdemeanor battery and sentenced to 6 months in jail.

The appellate court overturned the conviction, ruling that the witnesses should have been permitted to testify so that Mr. Watson could present his self-defense claim to the jury. 

Upon re-trial, Mr. Arcon would not remain at the court to be a witness, and the case was ultimately dismissed.  Unfortunately, Mr. Watson had already served his jail sentence.