• Business Litigation
• Professional Liability
• Appeals

• University of California at Los Angeles, 1985, J.D.
• Dartmouth College, 1982, A.B. With Distinction in English

• Moscarino & Connolly LLP, 2004-2010
• O'Neill, Lysaght & Sun LLP, 1988-2003
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 1987-1988
• Law Clerk, Honorable Robert B, Krupansky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1985-1987

• California
• District of Columbia
• All Federal Courts in California
• Ninth Circuit
• Sixth Circuit

John Moscarino represents both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of complex litigation matters in federal and state courts.  His practice encompasses such diverse areas as professional malpractice, sports and entertainment, securities fraud, antitrust, civil rights, labor and employment, real estate, libel, intellectual property, unfair competition and related business torts.  In addition to his trial practice, John has handled numerous appeals. He regularly represents clients in arbitrations and mediations and has served as a mediator himself.  John has represented a number of corporations and individuals in federal and state grand jury proceedings. He has also served as an expert witness.

John has written and lectured extensively on a variety of business-related topics.  He is a faculty member of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA) and of the California CPA Education Foundation.  John was the youngest person on the Los Angeles Business Journal’s 1997 list of the “50 Top L.A. Lawyers You Should Know.” That same year he was profiled in the “20 under 40” feature of the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals.  John has also been listed in  “Southern California Super Lawyers” each year from 2004 through 2010. He is a Charter Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America.  John has been active in fundraising efforts for Dartmouth College and for UCLA School of Law.

• Representation of a small aircraft parts manufacturer in a fraud and malpractice case against a Big Five accounting firm arising out of that firm’s engagement as an expert witness for the client.  The jury returned a $42 million verdict in favor of the client. The case was aggressively litigated over nine years and generated four published opinions establishing significant precedents. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., Inc. 52 Cal.App 4^th 920 (1997); 38 Cal. App. 4^th 1337 (1995); 5 Cal. App. 4^th 392 (1992); 223 Cal. App. 3d 1429 (1990)
  
  
• Representation of a large national law firm in a multi-million dollar malpractice case arising out of its representation of a bank. The case was dismissed by the trial court as time-barred under the statute of limitations. The California Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s dismissal order, resolving a conflict in lower court opinions and adopting narrow construction of the “continuous representation” tolling provisions of the California attorney malpractice statute of limitations.  Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden LLP, 42 Cal. 4^th 503 (2007).
  
  

• Representation of two professional basketball players in litigation arising out of their business manager’s embezzlement of millions of dollars from them.  The representation not only involved the filing of civil litigation which resulted in a financial recovery from four separate defendants, but also the instigation of a criminal investigation which resulted in the criminal conviction of the business manager.
  
  
• Representation of a real estate developer in an arbitration filed by a land planner who sought a multi-million dollar recovery arising out of the development of the Lake at Las Vegas project.  The arbitrator’s award was a fraction of what the land planner claimed as damages and was far more favorable than the developer’s pre-arbitration settlement offer to the land planner.
  
  
• Representation of the former owners of a mining company who were named defendants in a securities fraud case arising out of their sale of stock in the company.  The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed by the court on the first day of trial, following the admission of exhibits damaging to their case.
  
  
• Representation of an individual plaintiff in the trial of a securities fraud lawsuit that was filed by another lawyer.  After being cross-examined on the first day of trial on a different theory of liability than had been pursued by the prior lawyer during the deposition phase of the case, the defendant offered a settlement favorable to the plaintiff.
  
  
• Representation of a group of corporations and lawyers in a malicious prosecution case filed by an individual who had been acquitted in a criminal insurance fraud case.  A number of the claims against the defendants were dismissed on demurrer and the remainder of the claims were successfully resolved by an order granting summary judgment to the defendants.   The court of Appeal affirmed all of the trial court’s rulings.
  
  

• Representation of a professional basketball player whose shoe contract was terminated by the shoe manufacturer for violation of the morals clause in the contract.  The arbitrator held that the shoe company did not have the right to terminate the contract.
  
  
• Representation of a bank consulting company in a legal malpractice case brought against a local Los Angeles lawyer and his small law firm arising out of a claim for breach of a royalty agreement.  The matter was favorably resolved after the first day of testimony.
  
  
• Representation of a well known Los Angeles litigation boutique in a malpractice case in which the firm’s former client named four separate law firms as defendants.  The trial court dismissed the claims against the law firm on demurrer.
  
  
  
  
• Representation of a large national law firm in an interference with contract case in which the firm was sued for allegedly disregarding a law firm’s lien when disbursing proceeds of a settlement.  After a few strategically chosen depositions, the case settled for an amount far below the cost of defense.
  
  
• Representation of a garment manufacturer whose bookkeeper had embezzled monies from the firm without detection from its accountants.  The matter was resolved favorably to the client shortly after an accounting malpractice complaint was filed against the accounting firm.
  
  
• Consulting with the partners in a small Los Angeles law firm on the structuring of their partnership and the development of a system for dividing their profits.
  
  
• Representation of a corporation that had a seven figure judgment entered against it after a trial in which it had been represented by another law firm.  The Court of Appeal not only reversed the judgment, but ordered the judgment be entered in favor of the client, paving the way for a successful attorneys’ fee motion.
  
  
• Representation of a defendant who had been found liable for fraud in a trial in which he was represented by another law firm.  The Court of Appeal significantly reduced the damage award.