---

---

Practice Areas: Civil Litigation, Labor and Employment, Sexual Harassment Claim Defense

Additional Information: Ms. Ross was born and raised in Bay Shore, New York and moved to Los Angeles in 1987 to attend USC Law School. She began her legal career in 1990 as an associate in the employment law department of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Los Angeles. When not practicing law, Ms. Ross engages in endless conflict resolution between her two young sons at home, enjoys going to the movies and the theatre, New York City, watching her son perform in dramatic arts programs, and taking tropical vacations with her family (when possible).

Other Significant Representative Matters:

Lockhart v. MVM, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 1452 (2009). Ms. Ross successfully argued before the California Court of Appeal that the Customs and Immigration Correctional Facility at Terminal Island was a “federal enclave.” This legal designation required the court to dismiss all of plaintiff’ state law claims on summary judgment prior to trial. This published decision was another case of first impression in California argued by Ms. Ross because no statute, case law or other written document had previously designated any facility on Terminal Island as a “federal enclave.”

Long Beach Mortgage a.k.a. Ameriquest v. NovaStar Financial Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage Inc. In an adversarial case filed by an aggressive competitor against this new start-up mortgage company, the plaintiff-company claimed unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unlawful solicitation of employees. Plaintiff sought $5 million in damages against defendant NovaStar and threatened its livelihood. After trial, the jury found liability, but awarded less than $22,000 in damages. Using the creative strategy of an Offer to Compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 prior to trial, NovaStar recovered costs from the plaintiff-company significantly decreasing the liability even more. In addition, Ms. Ross recovered fees from the plaintiff-company as sanctions for abuse of the discovery process during pre-trial proceedings. NovaStar ultimately flourished into a lucrative company with thousands of employees traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Marilyn Bush v. California Institution of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, As a junior associate at Paul Hastings, Ms. Ross was part of a two-lawyer team defending against a one-of-a-kind glass ceiling sex discrimination case filed by a high level manager against the California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory. After a four week jury trial, the jury denied virtually all of plaintiff’s discrimination claims, and found in favor of JPL on its cross-complaint against the plaintiff for fraud. Subsequently, the Judge determined that the lawyers had presented such strong evidence that they established that the Plaintiff’s case was “frivolous” and the Judge awarded JPL over $750,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs against the plaintiff/former employee. This was a significant decision in the employment law community because it was the first time an employer obtained a significantly large judgment for attorneys’ fees against a former employee for filing a frivolous discrimination claim even though the case went all the way through a trial and jury verdict.

Private arbitration for Healthcare Industry Client – Ms. Ross has defended a major health care industry provider in a dozen arbitrations during the past fifteen years and has obtained either a full defense verdict after hearing or mutually agreeable settlement pre-hearing in all such cases.

Summary Judgment Motions. In employment litigation, summary judgment motions are difficult to obtain. Often, there are disputed facts that stand in the way of a court dismissing the action prior to trial. Through creative strategizing, an exhaustive investigation and a narrowly tailored deposition, Ms. Ross has been successful in obtaining numerous summary judgments in favor of her clients. In certain cases, advance strategic planning has led to an award of costs and attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel for refusing to dismiss a frivolous case prior to the summary judgment hearing.

---

Firm Members: Lora Silverman