5 /5 joe gimenez: Mr. Romo successfully defended our member-owned water supply corporation.
The plaintiffs won on a point that agenda items were not listed correctly. Mr. Romo could not be expected to prevail on that point of evidence which occurred years before.
However, on the plaintiffs larger petition of voiding a transaction by the corporation, Mr. Romo prevailed with TWO judges in securing "Take Nothing" rulings based on real estate law. That is what any prospective client of Mr. Romos should know about the case -- that on matters of law he prevailed.
Also, despite the judge finding that a previous Board had in fact violated agenda prescriptions, the judge did not award attorney fees to the plaintiff. That was another victory for Mr. Romo and our water corporation. Mr. Romo is a very good attorney.
By the way, this is the same case mentioned by another reviewer -- Mister Flunker. Of course Mr. Flunker did not mention that he was a plaintiff in the case and his review is nothing more than the sour grapes of a losing party. It is also humorous that Mr. Flunker speaks about Mr. Romos fees. Remember it is Mr. Flunkers lawsuit which forced the water supply corporation to employ Mr. Romo to defend it. Given the much larger stakes involved in the case, Mr. Romos fees were very appropriate.
