Damian R. Fernandez

Law Office of Damian R. Fernandez

Saratoga, CA

Damian Fernandez graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1999 and from California State University, Long Beach in 1996 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration: Accounting. In 2000, he opened his civil litigation practice in Silicon Valley, California.

Damian wrote two briefs for the 2000 Presidential Election case of Bush v. Gore—one to the Electoral College and the other to Al Gore’s attorneys.  He raised legal issues which were overlooked by the Florida Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court and Gore’s attorneys. After the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against Gore, the Florida Supreme Court finally acknowledged the legal arguments that Damian had raised which would have allowed the counting of Florida votes through January 6th, 2001.

Damian’s passion for high-tech led to the discovery of the legal issues in this lawsuit. As in the case of Bush v. Gore, attorneys and legal educators throughout the United States overlooked the liability of Apple and AT&T. The media reported that attorneys and deans of law schools did not believe that a case existed against Apple and AT&T for the bricking of iPhones or their exclusive agreement.

M. Van Smith

Law Office of M. Van Smith

San Jose, CA

Van Smith is one of the most experienced attorneys in California with a legal career spanning the past 48 years. After graduating from the University of Colorado School of Law, he became a Colorado attorney in 1959 and a California attorney in 1961.

Van began his distinguished career in the public sector working as Deputy District Attorney for Santa Clara County from 1962–1964, and as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Jose from 1964–1970. As a city attorney, Van was one of two attorneys who won a million dollar verdict in a case against PG&E—an unprecedented amount for that time.

After his work in the public sector, Van quickly made a name for himself in securities litigation. He is the author of two prominent law review articles: Breaking the Chains that Bind: Arbitration Agreements Versus Forum Right Under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, 16 San Diego Law Review 749–771 (1979), and Preventing the Manipulation of Commodity Futures Markets: To Deliver or Not to Deliver? 32 Hastings Law Journal 1569–1607 (1981).

Van was also counsel in several published opinions including: Santa Clara County Contractors & Homebuilders Asso. v. Santa Clara, 232 Cal. App. 2d 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965); People v. Shavers, 269 Cal. App. 2d 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); People v. Harris, 270 Cal. App. 2d 863 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); Paris v. County of Santa Clara, 270 Cal. App. 2d 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); Santa Clara v. County of Santa Clara, 1 Cal. App. 3d 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); City of Palo Alto v. County of Santa Clara, 5 Cal. App. 3d 918 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970); Santa Clara v. Von Raesfeld, 3 Cal. 3d 239 (Cal. 1970); Goldberg v. City of Santa Clara, 21 Cal. App. 3d 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971); City of Santa Clara v. Santa Clara Unified Sch. Dist., 22 Cal. App. 3d 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971); Ramos v. City of Santa Clara, 35 Cal. App. 3d 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973); Previte v. Lincolnwood, Inc., 48 Cal. App. 3d 976 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975); Santa Clara v. Kleppe, 418 F. Supp. 1243 (D. Cal. 1976); Croll v. Maduff & Sons, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 1381 (D. Cal. 1980); Guardianship of Phillip B., 139 Cal. App. 3d 407 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983);  Lopez v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 581 (D. Cal. 1984); Lopez v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 805 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1986); Jellinek v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d 652 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991); Kim v. Servosnax, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1346 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992); Monex Int’l, Ltd. v. CFTC, 83 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th Cir. 1996).