The courtroom is where the people we represent have the most power, because it is where they can call bad actors to account. Trial work is hard. Success in the courtroom requires a combination of grit, smarts, and dedication—those values and skills serve as the foundation of Sugerman Dahab.
Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, No 1112-17046 (Multnomah Cnty. Cir. Ct.)
Across Oregon, ARCO gas stations and am-pm minimarkets charged consumers an illegal debit card charge 13,000 times a day. Over 2 million consumers were overcharged. David led a team of talented lawyers in what is widely recognized as a landmark consumer protection case. David and team tried the case to a jury and obtained a judgment in excess of $400 million. The case was fully affirmed on appeal. Years later, BP settled, and the settlement resulted in a payment of $185 to each overcharged consumer. Unclaimed funds from the case provided $80 million in funding to Oregon Legal Aid and $80 million to start a new consumer protection center, Oregon Consumer Justice.
Boos v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., No. 02-2-16730-6 (King Cnty. Super. Ct., WA)
Boos was part of a series of class and mass actions in state and federal courts in Oregon and Washington. In this product liability class action, David tried the action through phase one, establishing that the product in question was dangerously defective. The class settled after the phase one trial.
Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego, No. CV12100913 (Clackamas Cnty. Cir. Ct.)
In 2023 and 2024, Nadia and David took the lead in a two-phase trial of a public trust case arising from the City of Lake Oswego’s residents-only access restriction to the waters of Oswego Lake. On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, the phase-one bench trial, which concluded in March 2022, addressed whether Oswego Lake was navigable at statehood.
In a written opinion, the court found that Oswego Lake was title-navigable in 1859 and that a public trust doctrine right of access applies to the waters of the entire lake. After the phase-two trial, for which the circuit court empaneled an advisory jury, the court ruled that the access restriction was unreasonable and therefore unlawful.