Law Is A Service Business

By Lincoln Horton

Law is a profession inhabited largely by smart, driven, competitive men and women.  Our firm's attorneys have all of those characteristics.  But what sets the lawyers at Horton Village Law Group apart from a lot of other lawyers is that we recognize, first and foremost, that law is a service business.  As a firm, we are here to provide great legal representation and advice to our clients, but in the end our task is always to serve the interests of the clients.  The practice of law is often complex and idiosyncratic, and the competitive desire to come up with the best arguments, or write the best brief, or handle the case the way the lawyer thinks best, sometimes, with some lawyers, causes the client's interests to take a back seat.  At our firm, we may be driving the bus across the legal highway, but we are listening to where our clients want to go, and if it is possible from a legal perspective, we will take them to their desired destination.  

ERISA Plan Litigation

Lincoln Horton, founder and principal of Horton Village Law Group, has many years experience and expertise litigating matters on behalf of Plan Sponsors and Plan Trustees involving ERISA Plans. He handles lawsuits on behalf of Plan Sponsors and Plan Trustees against third party administrators, actuaries, investment professionals, other fiduciaries, and any other parties that cause damages to ERISA Plans and their assets. Among other types of cases, he handles matters involving overfunded and underfunded Defined Benefit Plans, erroneous plan terminations and rollovers, and bad investment advice resulting in a reduction of Plan assets. He is intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the very complex legal area of ERISA Plans and ERISA litigation. Please contact him (858-832-8685/lhorton@hortonvilagelaw.com) if you are a Plan Sponsor, Plan Trustee, or administrator and have an ERISA Plan issue that you would like to discuss.

Lincoln Horton Prevails in Jury Trial

Lincoln Horton prevailed on behalf of his client in a breach of contract matter in a recent jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. After deliberations, the jury awarded Mr. Horton’s client a verdict of $813,336.00. The jury also gave a defense verdict to Mr. Horton’s client on the other side’s counterclaim for 2.5 million dollars.

Lincoln Horton Obtains $667,000 Judgment in a Contract Dispute Case

Lincoln Horton of Horton Village Law Group (“HVLG”) obtained a judgment of $667,428.03 on behalf of a client in a business/contract dispute before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The defendant asserted various contract defenses in the case, each of which were refuted by Mr. Horton in a summary judgment motion granted by the District Court. This judgment is just another in a long string of successes obtained by Mr. Horton and HVLG on behalf of its clients. Mr. Horton is a skillful and experienced trial attorney, but realizes that many cases can be resolved long before trial by dispositive motion, at a huge cost savings for his clients. Mr. Horton has enjoyed much success with motions for summary judgment in the business dispute matters he handles, and will file such motions when the undisputed facts of a matter warrant.

Lincoln Horton Obtains Judgment for Over $527,000 in Business Matter

Lincoln Horton of Horton Village Law Group (“HVLG”) obtained a judgment for a client totaling $527,405.68 in a breach of contract matter, after a successful motion for summary judgment in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The defendant asserted various defenses in the case, and filed a counterclaim that was also resolved in favor of Mr. Horton’s client on summary judgment. This is the latest in a string of successes by Mr. Horton and HVLG on behalf of its clients. Mr. Horton has enjoyed particular success on summary judgment motions, which he has found to be a great method to short circuit litigation at a huge cost savings for his clients in cases where there is not a genuine issue of material fact as to his client’s entitlement to judgment.