• Site Search
  • Lawyer Search

Arturo J. González

Partner
San Francisco, (415) 268-7020
  • Print PDF
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • MoFolder

Arturo González is chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Commercial Litigation and Trial Practice Group and a former co-chair of our Litigation Department. He is a trial lawyer who specializes in high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation.

Mr. González has successfully defended three trials where the plaintiffs sought more than $1 billion in damages, including a trade secrets case on behalf of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation. That lawsuit was filed by Silvaco Data Systems, and when the case did not settle, Cypress turned to Mr. González to try it. In another, he represented a national bank in a class action trial. The bank prevailed on all claims but one and the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank on that claim. His third billion-dollar case was representing a former member of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum board of directors sued for fraud by the Oakland Raiders. The jury returned a defense verdict for the director.

Mr. González has also won four verdicts in excess of $10 million. In 2010, he won a $10.8 million jury verdict in a breach-of-duty and trade secrets case, including a finding that multiple defendants acted willfully. He also won a $36.3 million verdict in April 2009 in a trial involving medical robotics, where the jury found that the defendant willfully misappropriated trade secrets and breached two contracts. In 2012, he obtained a $60 million verdict in a wrongful death trial, and in 2004, he obtained a $12.5 million verdict in a civil rights trial. 

Judges have praised Mr. González’s trial skills: “the quality of written work product . . . was of the highest level,” and “the trial advocacy skills were superior.” Another judge described his trial skills as “phenomenal.”

Mr. González has been consistently recognized by his peers and in legal publications. He was honored in The National Law Journal’s 2009 “Winning” Special Report, which recognizes 10 of the country’s top trial lawyers. From 2010-2013, he was selected as one of the country’s top 30 trial lawyers by Legal 500 US, which described Mr. González as “[i]ncredibly impressive on his feet, great storyteller to the judge and jury, highly experienced,” and a “great leader.” Chambers USA recommends Mr. González as a general commercial litigator, noting that he is “[a] great advocate who quickly establishes a rapport with judges and juries.”

From 2006-2012, he was named by Daily Journal as one of California’s Top 100 leading lawyers, and he has been recommended as a leading lawyer by Best Lawyers in America from 2008-2014. In 2008, Mr. González was listed among the “50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America” by The National Law Journal, in 2003, The American Lawyer named him one of the nation’s top 45 lawyers under the age of 45, and in 1995, he was selected by The National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top 40 lawyers under the age of 40.

Mr. González is an associate with the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and he served as the 2010 President of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Technology Integrated Group v. FusionStorm
Won a $10.8 million jury verdict and successfully defended all counterclaims in 2010. After a five-week trial involving the value-added reseller industry, a jury found that multiple defendants had violated their duty of care to their former employer and willfully misappropriated three trade secrets. The jury also found that the new employer aided, abetted, and ratified those acts, and awarded punitive damages against plaintiff’s former manager, the new employer, and three of its officers.
Hansen Medical v. Luna Innovations Inc.
Won a $36.3 million victory for Hansen Medical Inc. in 2009. After a four-week trial involving medical robotics, a jury found that the defendant had willfully misappropriated trade secrets and breached two contracts.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court (2008)
163 Cal.App.4th 575. Successfully defended Cypress Semiconductor Corporation in trade secrets trial. Court bifurcated issue of statute of limitations and then made legal ruling adverse to Cypress. We persuaded Court of Appeals to stay trial so that it could rule on statute of limitations issue. In a case of first impression, appellate court reversed and remanded case for trial. The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that Cypress never acquired the allegedly secret source code.
Vega v. Bank of the West
Won jury verdict for bank as lead defense counsel in race discrimination case, which included claims of denied services and slander. Argued appeal and favorable verdict was affirmed.
Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda Cty. Coliseum Corp.
144 Cal. App. 4th 1175 (2006). Represented Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum director at three-month trial and obtained a defense verdict.
California False Claim Act Defense
Scored a trial victory in a case filed by the City of Modesto alleging violation of the California False Claims Act and seeking $7 million for underpaying taxes. Successfully argued that the City’s tax code was unconstitutional and that the City violated our client’s right to due process of law.
Dinerman v. 3M
Obtained a nonsuit ruling for defendant in a breast implant case, after the court concluded at a Kelly-Frye hearing that there was no evidence that the silicone implants caused autoimmune disease.
Gallardo et al. v. Reinnecius, et al.
Represented widow and children of a farm worker killed by police. After a three-week trial, the jury found various constitutional violations and awarded $12.5 million in damages.
Butt v. State of California
Lead counsel on behalf of a class of parents from the Richmond Unified School District. The school board had voted to close its public schools six weeks early because the district had run out of funds. Obtained an injunction preventing the schools from closing. Argued the case before the California Supreme Court, Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal. 4th 668, which held that a premature closure of the schools would violate a child's right to a public education.
Loading...
Loading...