Arturo J. González

Partner

San Francisco, (415) 268-7020

Download vCard

Education

University of California, Davis (A.B., 1982)
;
Harvard Law School (J.D., 1985)

Practices

Trials

Commercial Litigation

Class Actions

Bar Admissions

California

Arturo González is co-chair of Morrison & Foerster's Litigation Department. Mr. González 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. One of these victories was a major trade secrets case on behalf of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation. The 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. After a five-month trial, the jury returned a defense verdict for the director.

Mr. González has also been very successful trying cases for plaintiffs. In 2010, he won an $10.8 million jury verdict in a breach-of-duty and trade secrets case, including a finding that multiple defendants acted wilfully. He also won a $36.3 million victory for Hansen Medical Inc. in April 2009 in a trial involving medical robotics. In that case, the jury found that the defendant had willfully misappropriated trade secrets and breached two contracts. He also obtained a $12.5 million verdict for plaintiffs in a civil rights trial in federal court.

Judges have consistently praised Mr. González's trial skills: "the quality of written work product by counsel was of the highest level," and "the trial advocacy skills were superior." Another judge described his performance at trial as "phenomenal."

Mr. González was honored in The National Law Journal's 2009 “Winning” Special Report, which recognizes 10 of the country's top trial lawyers. In 2010, he was selected as one of the country’s top 22 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.”

In 2006, 2008, and 2009, he was named by Daily Journal as one of California's Top 100 leading lawyers. 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.

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 national bank as lead defense counsel in race discrimination case, which included claims of denied services, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Won affirmance of jury verdict after arguing the case on appeal.

Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda Cty. Coliseum Corp.

144 Cal. App. 4th 1175 (2006). Represented Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum on appeal, obtaining reversal of $34 million judgment following a multimonth trial in which the Raiders claimed more than $1 billion in damages.

California False Claim Act Defense

Scored a trial victory on behalf our client in a case filed by the City of Modesto alleging violation of the California False Claims Act and seeking $7-million for underpaying taxes. We successfully argued that the City's tax code was unconstitutional and that the City had violated our client's right to due process of law. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment (including legal fees) in our client's favor.

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.

Successfully represented a widow and children of a farm worker who was killed by police. After a three-week trial, where the jury found various constitutional violations and awarded $12.5 million in damages. In a post-trial order awarding substantial legal fees, the District Court wrote that "the quality of the written work product by plaintiffs' counsel was of the highest level" and that "the trial advocacy skills of plaintiffs' counsel were superior."

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.