Peter E. Garrell

Partner
 Add vCard to your address book

Peter E. Garrell is a Partner in the firm and has been in practice over 32 years.

A seasoned and proven attorney, Peter represents the legal and business interests of clients in both state and federal court, arbitrations and various negotiations. Peter’s broad experience includes real estate, commercial, tort, employment and entertainment litigation matters. He has successfully tried and arbitrated many complex matters ranging from employment and consumer class actions and government enforcement actions to complex commercial disputes. Peter has developed an arbitration and class action waiver for several clients upon which he has prevailed in litigation on multiple matters.

Peter primarily focuses his practice on the unique challenges facing mid-market and emerging companies providing sound advice and counsel in business formation, buying and selling businesses, real estate issues such as zoning, parking and licensing issues, labor and employment, wage and hour matters, vendor relationships, contracts, and other issues.

Peter has represented several high profile individuals, and multi-state entertainment clients in real estate, entertainment, and complex employment and class litigation. He represented a major chemical company in its California toxic tort and asbestos litigation, where he litigated more than 50 cases from initial pleading through summary judgment. Peter has represented shopping malls, office buildings, restaurants and entertainment venues in claims arising from alleged violations of the American with Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act. As outside litigation counsel for an international restaurant chain, Peter developed a dispute resolution program for the disposition of the chain’s unsecured creditor claims in its bankruptcy.

Peter’s career has included being the principal shareholder of GARRELL LAW, P.C. as well as Vice-President and General Counsel for a worldwide entertainment company. Before that, Peter was a partner in the Los Angeles office of Liner, LLP from 1999 until 2012 and before that a litigator with Christensen, Miller.

EDUCATION
University of Bridgeport School of Law, Bridgeport, Connecticut — Juris Doctor 1991
Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts — Bachelor of Arts, Sociology and American Government 1988

BAR ADMISSION, COURTS ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
California State Bar No. 155177
State Bar of California, December 16, 1991
Supreme Court of California, December 16, 1991
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth District, December 16, 1991
USDC - Central District of California, January 31, 1992
USDC - Eastern District, December 11, 2003
United States Supreme Court, April 21, 2008
USDC - Eastern District of Michigan, April 22, 2020
United States Court of Appeals – Sixth Circuit, May 9, 2020
USDC - Eastern District of Wisconsin, April 8, 2021
United States Court of Appeals – Seventh Circuit, October 6, 2021
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S, December 16, 2021

SIGNIFICANT CASES

Defense Side Class and Complex Cases

• Amelia Yolanda Nueva Oliva v. Los Cerritos Center, a business entity, form unknown; Macerich Management Company, a California corporation; Interstate Cleaning Corporation, a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; (2023) Case No. BC706577 (Los Angeles County Superior Court – Central). Jury verdict in favor of Defendants in a premises liability case. 12-0 defense verdict after 3.5 weeks of trial.


• Grace Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Company; Simon Property Group; Melvin Simon & Associates; Simon Debartolo Group; JP Morgan Chase; Ontario Mills; And Does 1 To 50, inclusive; (2023); Case No. CIVDS1938974 - San Bernardino County Superior Court). Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants in a premises liability case.


• Graciela Guerra Morales individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jet Strip Cabaret, a corporate entity of unknown form and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (2019) 19STCV07841 (LASC – Central). Case resolved. Resulted in an individual settlement for the class representative, only.


• Katherine Scarlett Kappella, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 18301 - 1/2 E. 5th Ave. Corp. (dba Jumbo’s Clown Room), a California corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive (2019) BC723618 (LASC – Central). Case resolved. Final judgment entered in favor of the class.


• Jane Roe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperial Project, Inc., d/b/a Bare Elegance; Mike Galam; Victor Galam; Jacqueline Barnes; and Does 1-200, jointly and severally (2018) BC720147 (LASC – Central). Case resolved. Resulted in an individual settlement for the class representative, only.


• Jenetta L. Bracy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DG Hospitality Van Nuys, LLC; The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc.; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc.; Dames N’ Games; John Does #1-10; and XYZ Corporations #1-10 (2017) 5:17-cv-00854-VAP (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.). Settled. Received final approval. Expected to be paid in the near future, although 1 payments have been recently interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.


• Lauren Byrne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc., and Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, LLC (2017) 5:17-cv-00527-SVW (SPx) (C.D. Cal.). Settled. Received final approval. Final judgment has been entered.


• Adriana Ortega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc., and Midnight Sun Enterprises, LLC (2017) 5:17-cv-00206-JGB (KKx) (C.D. Cal.). Settled. Received final approval. Final judgment has been entered.


• Luis A. Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Complete Facilities Maintenance, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive (2014) BC538248 (LASC – Central). Settled. Received final approval. Final judgment has been entered.


• Stacy Salazar, an individual; and Erica Sullivan, an individual v. Rouge Gentlemen's Club, Inc. aka Rouge Gentlemen's Clubs, aka Rouge, Downtown LA Club Venture, Inc., aka Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc.; Olympic Avenue Ventures, Inc., aka Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc. aka Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (Los Angeles); Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (City Of Industry), aka City of Industry Hospitality Venture, Inc., aka Huntington Beach Hospitality Venture, Inc., and Does 1-1000, inclusive (2010) BC445244 (LASC – Central). The Salazar class representatives objected to the settlement in Trauth (below) and in the interim all counsel and the objectors entered into a global settlement and final judgment was entered.


• Veronica Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jewels Connection, Inc. and Does 1 through 50 (2010) BC443303 (LASC – Central). Settled. Received final approval. Final judgment has been entered.


• Christian Broce v. The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., a Nevada corporation doing business as "Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club"; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware corporation doing business as "Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club"; WPS Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation doing business as "Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club"; Santa Maria Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation doing business as "Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club"; The Oxnard Hospitality Services, Inc., a California corporation doing business as "Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club"; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive (2010) 1320074 (Santa Maria Superior Court). Settled. Received final approval. Final judgment has been entered.


• Stacy Salazar, an individual; Erica Sullivan, an individual; and Cynthia Gonzalez, an individual v. Rouge Gentlemen's Club, Inc. (Los Angeles; Downtown LA Club Venture, Inc.; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc.; Olympic Avenue Ventures, Inc., dba Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (Los Angeles); Seventh Veil, Inc.; West Coast Undercover, Inc., dba 4-Play; Valley Ball Management, LLC, dba Bare Elegance, aka Valley Ball (Van Nuys); Scores Gentlemen's Club (Los Angeles); VIP Showgirls (North Hollywood); Huntington Beach Hospitality Venture, Inc., dba Rouge Gentlemen's Club (Van Nuys); Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (Oxnard), aka The Oxnard Hospitality Service, Inc.; Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (Torrance); Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (City of Industry); Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club (Van Nuys); Cheetah's Night Club; Star Strip; Farmdale Hospitality Services, Inc., aka Blue Zebra; Crazy Girls; Vintage Industrial Strip Club; Godfathers; Eros Station; Players; Thirsty's Gentlemen's Club; Sunny's Saloon; Candy Cat 1; Candy Cat Too; Club 7557; Desire Gentlemen's Club; and Does 1-1000, inclusive (2010) BC432102 (LASC – Central). Case dismissed due to misjoinder of parties.


• Victoria Omlor and Anicia Vintimilla, individually, and on behalf of Class of similarly situated individuals v. The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Spearmint Rhino Companies, LLC, a California limited liability company; Inland Restaurant Venture 1, Inc., a California corporation; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Farmdale Hospitality Services, Inc., a California corporation; The Oxnard Hospitality Services, Inc., fka The Spearmint Rhino Club, Inc., a California corporation; John Gray dba Spearmint Rhino Adult Cabaret, a California fictitious business; Spearmint Rhino Van Nuys, a business entity form unknown; Midnight Sun Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (2009) BC420882 (LASC – Central). The Omlor class representatives objected to the settlement in Trauth (below) and in the interim all counsel and the objectors entered into a global settlement and final judgment was entered.


• Michelle Hoisington, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Rouge Gentlemen's Club, Inc., doing business as Rouge Gentlemen's Club, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive (2009) BC419646 (LASC – Central). The Hoisington class representatives objected to the settlement in Trauth (below) and in the interim all counsel and the objectors entered into a global settlement and final judgment was entered.


• Michelle Hoisington, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Inland Restaurant Venture I, Inc., doing business as Spearmint Rhino, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive (2009) BC419669 (LASC – Central). The Hoisington class representatives objected to the settlement in Trauth (below) and in the interim all counsel and the objectors entered into a global settlement and final judgment was entered.


• Victoria Omlor, Jasmine Wright, Anicia Vintimilla, Marsha Ellington, Selena Denise Palaez, Nicole Garcia, Reah Navarro, and Tami Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of Class of similarly situated individuals v. City of Industry Hospitality Venture, Inc., Downtown LA Club Venture, Inc., Farmdale Hospitality Services, Inc., Inland Restaurant Venture I, Inc., Midnight Sun Enterprises, Inc., Olympic Avenue Venture, Inc., The Oxnard Hospitality Services, Inc., Rialto Pockets, Inc., Rouge Gentlemen's Club, Inc., Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., Santa Maria Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (2009) BC418020 (LASC – Central). The Omlor class representatives objected to the settlement in Trauth (below) and in the interim all counsel and the objectors entered into a global settlement and final judgment was entered.


• Tracy Dawn Trauth, Christen Rivera, Jennifer Blair, Victoria Omlor, Jasmine Wright, Ancia Vintimilla, Marsha Ellington, Selena Denise Pelaez, Nicole Garcia, Reah Navarro, Tami Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc.; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc.; The Oxnard Hospitality Services, LP; City of Industry Hospitality Venture, Inc.; Downtown LA Club Venture, Inc.; Farmdale Hospitality Services, Inc.; High Expectations Hospitality, LLC; Inland Restaurant Venture 1, Inc.; K-Kel, Inc.; Kentucky Hospitality Venture, LLC, LCM, LLC; Midnight Sun Enterprises, Inc.; Olympic Avenue Venture, Inc.; Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc.; Santa Maria Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.; WPB Hospitality LLC; Rialto Pockets, Inc.; and Rouge Gentlemen’s Club, Inc. (2009) EDVC09-1316-VAP (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.). After objections being filed, the case settled with final judgment having been entered and a class certified for settlement only.


• The California Coalition of Undressed Performers; 4 Exotic Dancers; and all similarly situated individuals v. Spearmint Rhino; Bare Elegance; Century Lounge; Crazy Girls; Deja Vu Showgirls; Fantasy Island; 4play; Jet Strip; Playpen; Rio; Rouge; Sam's Hof Brau; Scores; Seventh Veil; Silver Rein; Star Strip; Star Strip Too; Starz and the Wild Goose (2008) CV08-04038-ABC-SSx (C.D. Cal.). After significant law and motion, putative class counsel was disbarred and the case dismissed. See State Bar of California website – Patrick Manshardt.


• Melissa Arfat, on behalf of herself and as a Representative Class Member v. Blue Zebra Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation; Blue Zebra, a business organization form unknown; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (2007) BC367741 (LASC – Central). Settled. Received final approval. Final judgment has been entered.

Plaintiff Side Class and Complex Cases

• Charles Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc., a California company; Proctor Financial, Inc., a Michigan corporation; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive (2017) BC541571 (LASC – Central). Defendants defeated this case on Summary Judgment, which was unsuccessfully appealed.


• Adriana Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fritz That’s It Gentlemens Club, a business entity form unknown; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (2019) 30-2019-01091557-CU-OE-CXC (OCSC). Case resolved. Final judgment entered in favor of the class.


• Adriana Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 2523 E. Anaheim, Inc. dba XS Afterhours Gentlemens Club, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (2019) 19STCV16831 (LASC – Central). Case resolved. Final judgment entered in favor of the class.


• Adriana Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Palms Gentlemens Club, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (2019) 19STCV15211 (LASC – Central). Case resolved. Final judgment entered in favor of the class.


• Ontario Food and Beverage, LLC v. Andre Schoorl, Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations and David M. Lanier, Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, D.C. No. 5:18-CV-00753-SJO-SP. This action challenged the Constitutionality of California Labor Code Section 350(e) as applied to “dancers.” The State’s Motion to Dismiss was granted and injunction denied. On November 25, 2019, the 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court.


• Richard J. Soltis, Brittany Leigh Boltinghouse, Leigh Ann Soltis and Stephen Soltis v. City of Santa Monica and Aubrie Ahmadpour (2014) BC538405 (LASC – Central), With Mr. Kennedy we moved for summary judgment on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in a catastrophic injury case based on governmental immunity which motion was denied, but successfully overturned on a writ with judgment being entered in favor of the City of Santa Monica.


• DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC, et al. v. United States Small Business Administration, et al., (2020) 4:20-cv-10899. This case is currently pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to restrain the Small Business Administration and others from discriminating against workers who are entitled to benefit from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) provisions of the recently-enacted Coronavirus, Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, Pub L. No. 116-136 Sections 1101-03, 1107, 1114 (2020) (the “CARES Act”). The regulations and operating procedures of the Small Business Administration conflict with the text of the PPP and violate businesses and workers’ fundamental rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, among others. Preliminary Injunction granted. Defendants have appealed however, the case is currently stayed pending forgiveness phase of PPP and any government denials of forgiveness.

APPELLATE OPINIONS

• In re Frances Michael Fitzgerald, 428 B.R. 872 (B.A.P. 9th Cir) 2010


• Johnson v. Sun West Mortgage, B283262, Cal. Ct. App. (2019)


• City of Santa Monica v. Superior Court, B270368, Cal. Ct. App. (2017)


• Dunsworth v. Ben Sholam, B281356, Cal. Ct. App. (2018)


• Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Superior Court, B267040, Cal. Ct. App. (2015)


• SBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Mountain Gate Associates, LLC, B225873, Cal. Ct. App. (2011)


• Jewels Connection v. Oro Direct, B219034, Cal. Ct. App. (2010)


• Manning v. Investors Capital Corp., B196915, Cal. Ct. App. (2008)


• Goldstein v. Bernstein, B184546, Cal. Ct. App. (2006)