Tim strongly believes the honest and decent businesses and property owners in our communities deserve protection from the unscrupulous who manipulate the law to their own advantage. As an old Italian saying has it: “The moment a law is passed, the way around it is found.” Tim’s commitment is to protect his clients and their livelihoods, and to help steer a path in the law toward justice.

Outside of his legal practice, Tim is very active in his community through the non-profit Huntington Beach Tomorrow, a group dedicated to promoting quality of life in Huntington Beach. Tim and his wife, Andi, worked with councilmembers in 2017 toward making HB the third Orange County city to stop using glyphosate and toxic herbicides in city parks.

Tim holds his J.D. cum laude, with an emphasis on environmental and land-use law, from Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Chapman Law Review. Before practicing law, Tim helped run a successful IT sales and consulting firm in Orange County that continues to serve small businesses and individual customers in the region. He graduated from UC Irvine with a B.A. in philosophy, and is an alumnus of St. John Bosco High School in Bellflower.

SELECTED DECISIONS
  • Shapiro v. Dohr (Cal.Ct.App. 2017), reversing $5.1 million judgment. TVA’s client Bill Dohr gave a $15 million promissory note to buy a real-estate development company from his partner and father-in-law, Bob Lintz. Given their close ongoing business and personal relationship — and because the California real-estate market in the early 2000s was flowing with milk and honey — the parties were not terribly concerned with documenting the payments on the note. But after Lintz’s health declined, his fourth ex-wife and then fifth wife (long story) usurped control of the trust, stole millions from Lintz, sued Bill on the note, and won a $5.1 judgment in a case styled Shapiro v. Dohr, et al. Read more here.
  • C&C Properties, et al. v. Shell Pipeline Co., et al. (E.D.Cal. 2015), obtaining a mandatory injunction against Shell requiring removal of its oil pipeline. TVA’s clients bought a 138-acre parcel across the street from Meadows Field airport, a property hoped to be the “window to the city” of Bakersfield. When undisclosed Shell and Chevron pipelines were found and they refused to relocate them, however, development ground to a halt. After several months of stalemate, this “window” property showed nothing but the power pipeline operators wield in Kern County. TVA sued the operators in federal court for the Eastern District of California in C & C Properties, Inc., et al., v. Shell Pipeline Co., et al. TVA immediately moved the court for a preliminary injunction requiring the operators to remove their pipelines and allow TVA’s clients to continue development. In response, Shell called upon Kern County officials and the California Public Utilities Commission, in an attempt to overcome the property owners’ rights. Read more here.
  • Peterson v. Rubio (Cal.Ct.App. 2015), reversing judgment and instructing the trial court to enter judgment in favor of TVA’s  client. TVA’s client received a loan secured by a promissory note. After paying the loan, the lender refused to return the note to TVA’s client. The trial court incorrectly ruled the loan agreement referenced a “sale” of the note, and entered judgment for the lender. TVA appealed, pointing out the loan agreement was ambiguous, and the circumstances clearly indicated the note was given as security only. The Court of Appeal agreed with TVA, and instructed the trial court to enter judgment requiring the lender to return the note and all collected payments that should have gone to TVA’s client.
  • Casey v. Ferrante et al. (C.D.Bkr. 2015), obtaining summary judgment invalidating a QPRT and returning a multi-million-dollar waterfront home to the Chapter 7 estate; affirmed on appeal. Read more here.
  • Citizens for a Fair Trash Contract v. City of Los Alamitos (O.C.Sup.Ct. 2011). The city of Los Alamitos violated its own code when it awarded a trash-hauling contract worth $6.5 million more than the lowest responsible bid. Judge Andrew Banks voided the city’s contract with Consolidated Disposal Services and ordered the city to follow its own procedures. Read more here.
  • Nguyen v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Hemet Community Medical Group), California Court of Appeal (Riv.Sup.Ct. 2011). Defeating summary judgment against a medical group’s agreement protecting patient lists and protected trade information.
  • Kelter v. Associated Financial Group, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 382 Fed.Appx. 632, 634.
  • Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 524, awarding $80,000 in attorneys’ fees in dispute over disclosure of corporate documents. In mid-2007, the Great Park Corporation began a nationwide search for a professional CEO. After paying a professional recruiter nearly $20,000, it received approximately 150 resumes from across the country and some foreign countries. However, of those 150 candidates, the Corporation’s “search committee” returned only one for the Board to interview, the brother of a former aide to board member Larry Agran. Agran had not disclosed this relationship. The search committee’s second choice was an existing Irvine City staffer, who also quickly withdrew his name from contention. Plaintiffs demanded to see all 150 resumes and all documents concerning the search. The Corporation refused. After Plaintiffs sued, the Corporation capitulated. On appeal, the Corporation was ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. Read more here.
BAR ADMISSIONS & PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
  • California Supreme Court and U.S. District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
  • Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Ninth Circuit;
  • Board Member, Orange County Federalist Society, 2007 to present
  • Commissioner, Orange County Human Relations Commission, May 2012 to present
  • Board Member, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, January 2013 to present
PUBLICATIONS & PUBLIC APPEARANCES
  • Who Will Redevelop Redevelopment?: Power and Pragmatism in California Redevelopment Law, 12 ALB. L. ENVTL. OUTLOOK J. 93 (2007)
  • Rethinking Eminent Domain: The Restitutionary Approach to Just Compensation, 9 CHAP. L. REV. 463 (2006) (Winner, First Prize, Pacific Legal Foundation, Seventh Annual Judicial Awareness Writing Competition, 2006)