Representative Matters

Filomena Meyer is a litigator who handles cases in a wide variety of areas, including business and commercial litigation, coverage and bad faith disputes, intellectual property, labor and employment and creditor-debtor matters. Ms. Meyer also has an active professional liability practice involving lawyers, healthcare professionals, accountants, insurance brokers, commercial and residential real estate brokers.

Ms. Meyer also has substantial experience in handling litigation involving construction defect claims, toxic torts, psychiatrist malpractice and real property disputes, including commercial landlord/tenancy disputes and in the highly regulated area of California mobile home park litigation.

Professional Background

Prior to joining Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in January 2004, Ms. Meyer was a senior associate at Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, LLP, where she focused on professional liability, real estate and commercial litigation.

Professional Affiliations

  • Los Angeles County Bar Association
  • Santa Monica Bar Association

Representative Matters

Ms. Meyer has represented clients throughout the state courts in Northern and Southern California and in the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California. Her representative cases have included:

  • La Donna Corp. v. Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz & Hogan, APC. A legal malpractice action brought by a specialty foods vendor against its former lawyers over the handling of the vendor’s breach of contract and unfair competition case against a catering company and Qantas Airlines. Summary judgment obtained.
  • Morandi v. Gonzalez, A negligence action against a physician and a pharmacy brought by a plaintiff who allegedly suffered “inner ear” nerve damage as a result of taking a 30-day course of the antibiotic, Gentamicin, via home intravenous infusions. The case was tried and to a jury, and resulted in a defense verdict.
  • Accarino v. Scott, et. al. Claims for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought against a law enforcement officer. Demurrer sustained.

Ms. Meyer is also an experienced appellate advocate. She has personally drafted more than 30 appellate briefs, including petitions for writs of mandate and writs of certiorari before the California Supreme Court. Ms. Meyer has likewise presented oral argument before all divisions of the Second and Fourth Appellate Districts. Her representative victories at the appellate level include:

  • Daniels v. Robbins (2010) 2010 WL 625410. A malicious prosecution action brought by plaintiff against the attorneys who had represented a litigant in an underlying defamation action against plaintiff. The Superior Court granted the defendant attorneys' motion to strike pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) statute. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision upon the ground that plaintiff had shown insufficient evidence of malice. 
  • Cleveland v. Internet Specialties West, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 24. Breach of contract and fraud action brought by investors against an internet service provider who had allegedly lulled the latter into believing that the company had folded when in fact the company, under a different name and guise, had become hugely successful. At the trial level, the defendant corporation obtained summary judgment on grounds of the statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed.
  • Kresich v. Stolpman, Krissman, Elber & Silver, LLP (2009) 2009 WL 2231683. A professional negligence action brought by a former principal after the loss of her sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation claims against the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. Defendant law firm obtained summary judgment for failure of plaintiff to show any triable issue of fact as to causation. The court of appeal affirmed.
  • Parsa v. Caplan (2007) 2007 WL 2938464 1. Legal malpractice and fraud action brought by a former director of the Medimex Clinical Laboratory, who claimed to have lost more than a million dollars as a result of his attorney's allegedly negligent representation during a federal investigation into conditions at the laboratory. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff could not prove that he would have achieved a more favorable result with competent counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
  • Paller v. Garcia (2005) 1005 WL 1492396. An action for unfair competition against State Farm Fire Insurance and Casualty Co. resulted in a summary judgment in favor of the latter on the ground that plaintiff did not state a cause of action for unfair competition and did not timely assert his remaining claims for infliction of emotional distress. The court of appeal affirmed.


Ms. Meyer has given presentations on civil procedure and the elements of legal writing.

  • "Mining the Social Media Treasure Trove: Discovery in the Social Media Era," West LegalEdcenter, live webcast, June 2015.

Hinshaw Publications


J.D., National University School of Law, 1990

B.A., University of the Philippines, 1984