Dedication. Skill. results.
ALEXANDER PAPAEFTHIMIOU IS AN EXPERIENCED LITIGATION AND CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD REPRESENTING CLIENTS LARGE AND SMALL THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. HE HAS SUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTED CLIENTS IN PERSONAL INJURY, CLASS ACTION, REAL ESTATE / HOA, BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES FOR OVER NINETEEN YEARS.
WE HAVE successfully representED clients in high stakes litigation against the top law firms in the country. no adversary is too large or client too small. HIS mission is to provide OUR clients with the best legal representation, With individualized service tailored to their needs their situations. “BIGGER” IS NOT ALWAYS “BETTER”. EXPERIENCE, EFFICIENCY AND PERSONALIZED ATTENTION ARE.
Not all lawyers OR LAW FIRMS are the same. MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE.
858-610-1246
alex@aplitigation.com
What our clients say
“I have used Alexander many times over the past few years and he has never disappointed. His vast knowledge of the law and ability to come up with effective strategies has always impressed me and given the results that I have been looking for. His work ethic and attention to detail is the best I have seen compared to other lawyers I have worked with. If you have a challenging case and need a good Lawyer Alexander is a great choice!!”
“Alex has the ability to quickly gain both deep and intuitive understanding of complex litigation subjects to advocate for his clients. He can do so successfully against large law firms with more resources, because he is smart and motivated purely to act in his clients best interest, with none of the red tape, expense and lack of responsiveness found at many firms (no 2 days clearing conflicts here).
Alex has successfully represented us in complex, high stakes litigation against a large corporation. He is quick to respond to our needs, and is an invaluable part of our legal resources.”
“In my role as General Counsel of a local San Diego based company, I had the pleasure to hire Alex Papaefthimiou on multiple occasions and evaluate him as his client. Mr. Papaefthimiou is a very hard working, bright attorney who understands the need to use practical approaches to get good results in litigation. He always provided good input with respect to litigation strategy and produced a quality work product. He knows how to be an aggressive advocate without getting personally involved. Overall, I think very highly of Mr. Papaefthimiou as both a person and an attorney and would highly recommend him to anyone that may be in need of his services.”
attorney endorsements
“I endorse this lawyer [Alexander Papaefthimiou]. In my over 26 years of practice, I have worked with a lot of lawyers. None have picked up on the nuances of complex litigation faster than Alex. His research and analytical skills are outstanding, as his strong work ethic. He cuts to the heart of every matter, and is always extremely well prepared. He also happens to be a wonderful human being and is a true pleasure to work with.”
“I endorse this lawyer. Alex has a brilliant legal mind and is the best law and motion lawyer I know. I highly recommend him.”
“I endorse this lawyer. We have worked on many heavily litigated and complex copyright infringement, trademark infringement and patent infringement actions together during the past 10 years. He is an extremely bright and gifted attorney who delivers winning arguments on paper and on his feet in court.”
BIO
Alexander E. Papaefthimiou (Principal)
Mr. Papaefthimiou is a litigation, trial and appellate lawyer focusing in personal injury, class action, real property / HOA, business and intellectual property disputes. In his 19 years of practice, he has taken multiple cases to trial in both federal and state court and recovered millions of dollars for his clients. As certified class counsel, he has recovered money for tens of thousands of aggrieved consumers and employees. He is also a skilled appellate attorney with numerous published opinions. See, e.g., Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017); Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, Inc., 598 Fed. Appx. 506 (9th Cir. 2015); CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) and Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino, 167 Cal. App. 4th 333 (2008).
Alexander routinely litigates against the top law firms in America and has gone against, without limitation, Nike, Twentieth Century Fox, E! Entertainment, Whole Foods Market, Orange County Choppers, RBS Citizens Bank NA d/b/a Charter One, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the County of Los Angeles, the County of San Bernardino and the County of Riverside.
Mr. Papaefthimiou was awarded the AVVO "Client's Choice Award" for 2015. He is rated "Superb" by that organization. Mr. Papaefthimiou is also a member of both the "Million Dollar Advocates Forum" and the "Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum", which limit membership to trial lawyers who have obtained million or multi-million dollar recoveries for their clients and demonstrated excellence in advocacy. Mr. Papaefthimiou has also been quoted in the Desert Sun as a legal commentator.
Alexander is the former President (2024) of the Board of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ventura County (BBSVC), a charitable organization dedicated to local youth and their potential. He has also served as BBSVC’s Vice-President, Treasurer and Director. He is currently on the Board. Mr. Papaefthimiou is also a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and assisted in the construction of affordable housing in Port Hueneme.
EDUCATION
University of San Diego School of Law - Juris Doctor, 2005
University of California, Los Angeles - Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy, 2001
WORK EXPERIENCE
Principal, Papaefthimiou APC, 2017 - Present
Principal, Law Office of Alexander E. Papaefthimiou, 2005-2017
PUBLICATIONS
Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, “Protecting a Trademark Licensee’s Rights from Rejection in the Licensor’s Bankruptcy Proceeding”, 2010 (pub.)
Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, “Revocation and Declaration of Invalidity as Defenses to the European Community’s Infringement Claim”, 2010 (pub.)
AWARDS
“Client’s Choice Award”, AVVO (2015)
Member, Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Member, Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Best Oral Advocate, University of San Diego (2003)
Book Award, University of California at Los Angeles (2001)
RESULTS
PLEASE note THAT the RESULTS obtained by alexander papaefthimiou cannot and do not GUARANTEE or predict a similar OUTCOME with RESPECT to any matter THAT we may be RETAINED to handle. The results below exclude any recovery of attorney fees OR COSTS.
CLASS ACTION / CONSUMER RIGHTS
social workers v. SAN BERNARDINO
Practice Area: Collective Action / Overtime
Outcome: $ 2 million total recovery. Represented class of social workers who were not paid all of the overtime required by law. Individual class members received approximately 87% of their claimed unpaid overtime. Certified as class counsel.
consumers v. AUTO Service Center
Practice Area: Class Action / Consumer Rights
Outcome: Over $ 1.5 million recovered. Represented approximately 69,000 consumers against national service center for selling illegal road hazard contract. Certified as class counsel.
social workers v. SAN BERNARDINO
Practice Area: Collective Action / Overtime
Outcome: $ 1.4 million total recovery. Represented class of social workers who were not paid all of the overtime required by law. Individual class members compensated approximately 95% of their claimed unpaid overtime.
call center workers v. Iehp
Practice Area: Collective Action / Overtime
Outcome: Represented class of call center workers and negotiated settlement of approximately 182% of claimed unpaid overtime. Certified as class counsel.
HOMEOWNERS v. DEBT COLLECTOR
Practice Area: Consumer Rights
Outcome: Represented fifteen (15) homeowners and won compensation of maximum statutory damages plus emotional distress damages caused by debt collector law firm.
VAN PATTEN v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Appeals / Consumer Rights
Outcome: Represented client wrongfully accused of violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Successfully defended judgment on appeal to United States Court of Appeal (Ninth Circuit).
Personal Injury / torts
DOE v. MENDOZA
Practice Area: Trial / Personal Injury
Outcome: $ 1.5 million judgment secured following trial of claims brought by victim of childhood sexual abuse.
PLAINTIFF v. CITY
Practice Area: Wrongful Death
Outcome: Over $ 1 million recovered on claim against City by family of elderly man with dementia struck in an unsafe crosswalk.
PLAINTIFF v. COUNTY
Practice Area: Wrongful Death
Outcome: $ 800,000.00 recovered on claim against County by parent of adult motorist killed due to the defendant’s failure to warn of an impending storm and the possibility of flash flooding.
PLAINTIFF v. DRIVER
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Outcome: $ 500,000.00 recovered for driver of car struck by delivery truck while on freeway.
PLAINTIFF v. CASINO
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Outcome: Over $ 490,000.00 obtained for patron assaulted by casino security guards.
HERNANDEZ v. KOCIS
Practice Area: Trial / Personal Injury
Outcome: Over $ 210,000.00 judgment following trial of claims by couple forced to jump out of second story window to escape fire. Also obtained dismissal of landlord’s $700,000.00 counterclaim.
PLAINTIFF v. INSURANCE CO.
Practice Area: Personal Injury / Diving Accident
Outcome: $200,000.00. Represented client injured in diving accident.
BUSINESS LITIGATION
SHAREHOLDER v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Trial / Business Litigation
Outcome: Obtained dismissal after trial of $ 7 million claim against client wrongfully accused of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
Bank v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Business Litigation
Outcome: Obtained dismissal by court of claims against investor wrongfully accused of fraud in connection with $ 3.5 million bid for commercial property.
CLIENT v. TeLEVISION STATIONS
Practice Area: Business Litigation / Intellectual Property
Outcome: $ 2 million recovered on behalf of investor that was not paid what it was owed for intellectual property in infomercial.
CLIENT v. Nike
Practice Area: Appeals / Business Litigation / Intellectual Property
Outcome: Successfully overturned judgment in favor of Nike on client’s claim for trademark infringement. Appealed to United States Court of Appeal (Ninth Circuit). Case settled under confidential terms after Nike’s judgment was overturned on appeal.
CLIENT v. NATIONAL FOOD RETAILER
Practice Area: Business Litigation / Intellectual Property
Outcome: Recovered over $ 600,000.00 for veteran-owned family farm harmed by the breach of an implied contract with national food retailer.
SHAREHOLDER v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Business Litigation / Corporate Dissolution
Outcome: Obtained dismissal of claim for dissolution of deadlocked corporation and the appointment of a third director selected by client.
AddVenture v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Business Litigation / Intellectual Property
Outcome: All claims against client dismissed by court. Represented manufacturer of compressed t-shirts sued for design patent infringement.
THE LOCAL REALTY v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Business Litigation / Intellectual Property
Outcome: Trademark cancellation proceeding against client dismissed by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
AcademyOne v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Intellectual Property / Business Litigation
Outcome: All claims against client dismissed by court. Represented provider of college transfer and information service sued for trademark infringement, domain name infringement and false advertising.
Newcomb v. CLIENT
Practice Area: Intellectual Property / Business Litigation
Outcome: All claims against client dismissed by court. Represented client sued for copyright Infringement, fraud and unfair competition.
REAL ESTATE / HOA
LENDER v. HOMEOWNER
Practice Area: Real Property
Outcome: Obtained injunction stopping the foreclosure of $18 million home in Beverly Hills. Negotiated with Internal Revenue Service, lienholders and buyers to close sale of property, allowing clients to collect on over $ 2 million in loans that would have been extinguished.
CLIENT V. HOA
Practice Area: Real Property / HOA
Outcome: Obtained $ 475,000.00 for client who sued HOA for failing to maintain common area piping, resulting in water damage to client’s unit.
CLIENT V. SELLERS
Practice Area: Real Property
Outcome: Obtained for client who sued the seller of a home and the seller’s agent for failing to disclose roof noises.
CLIENT V. HOA
Practice Area: Homeowners Association Law / Corporations
Outcome: Represented client in successful challenge to election of Board of Directors. After trial, the court ordered a new election.
PRACTICE AREAS
LITIGATION
LITIGATION IS THE LEGAL TERM USED TO DESCRIBE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BETWEEN TWO PARTIES TO DEFEND A LEGAL RiGHT LITIGATION CAN BE SETTLED THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR HEARD AND DECIDED BY A JUDGE OR JURY. IT ISN'T JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR A LAWSUIT AND INCLUDES A NUMBER OF activities BEFORE. DURING AND AFTER THE ACTUAL PROCESS. ARBITRATION. PRE-SUIT NEGOTIATIONS AND APPEALS ARE ALL A PART OF THE LITIGATION PROCESS.
APPEALS
IN LAW, AN APPEAL IS DIE PROCESS WHERE PARTIES MAY REQUEST A FORMAL CHANGE TO AN OFFICIAL COURT DECISION. SOME CASES ARE DECIDED BASED ON WRITTEN BRIEFS ONLY, BUT MANY ENTAIL AN ORAL ARGUMENT BETWEEN APPELLATE ATTORNEYS AND A PANEL OF JUDGES FOCUSING ON THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN DISPUTE. THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TYPICALLY THE FINAL DECISION. HOWEVER, THE CASE CAN BE SENT BACK TO TRIAL COURT FOR MORE PROCEEDINGS OR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT MAY REVIEW IT. AT DIE SAME TIME, THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE TO GRANT A REVIEW. GENERALLY. THE SUPREME COURT WILL AGREE TO A REVIEW IF THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL PRINCIPLE OR APPELLATE COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THE LAW DIFFERENTLY.
Employment
CONSUMER PROTECTION
AS A CONSUMER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. WHEN THESE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED, YOU CAN FILE A CLAIM AGAINST DIE ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE. HERE AT THE LAW OFFICE OF ALEX PAPAEFTHLMLOU, WE HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROTECTING AND DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS. WHATEVER YOUR SITUATION MAY BE, WE CAN HELP YOU DETERMINE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
YOUR INVENTIONS, ARTWORK AND WRITING ALL QUALIFY AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. WHEN YOU CREATE THESE WORKS. YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT they WILL REMAIN SAFE AND PROTECTED. IN ADDITION, WHEN YOU SIGN CONTRACTS WITh PEOPLE WHO USE YOUR WORKS. YOU EXPECT THE OThER PARTIES INVOLVED TO UPHOLD their PArt OF THE AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, IN SOME CASES. YOU HAVE TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION IN ORDER TO PROTECT OR DEFEND YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. HERE AT THE LAW OFFICE OF ALEX PAPAEFTFLIMIOU, WE ARE WELL-ACQUAINTED with! ALL OF THE COMPLEX LAWS that PERTAIN TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHETHER YOU NEED TO DEFEND YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN COURT OR TAKE ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE WHO HAS VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS, WE CAN HELP.
CLASS-ACTION
A class action lawsuit is one where one of the parties is a group of individuals who are
represented collectively by a member of the group. Instead of each injured person bringing
THEIR own lawsuit. the class action allows all the claims of all class members to be resolved in a single proceeding. While the subject matter of CLASS action lawsuits can vary, two factors are always present. First. the disputed issues are common to all members of THE class action. Second, the people affected are so numerous that It's Impracticable to bring all of them before THE court
CONTACT US
Not all lawyers are the same. Your choice of attorney could determine YOUR RESULTS. Call us or fill out the contact form below for a free consultation.
If your case qualifies, we may be able to take it on contingency, meaning that we don’t get paid UNLESS AND until you do.
We look forward to Representing you.
PapaeFthimiou APC
Dedication. Skill. Results.