Profile of Vincent D. Slavens
Mr. Slavens is a litigation attorney practicing in the areas of municipal, securities, business/contracts, and consumer litigation. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Corporate Finance from San Diego State University in 1994 and graduated with honors (magna cum laude) from California Western School of Law in 2001. Prior to law school, he worked as an investment broker for several of years. Mr. Slavens was a member of the California Western School of Law, Law Review. After passing the California Bar in 2001, he joined Krause & Kalfayan as an associate attorney and has put his securities experience to use in securities litigation, including arbitration matters with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. In 2005, he became a partner in the firm, which was renamed Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, LLP. In 2019, the firm name was renamed to Benink & Slavens, LLP.
Over the past several years, Mr. Slavens has successfully represented investors, businesses, ratepayers and consumers in a variety of matters ranging from individual actions to complex class actions. He successfully defended individuals and corporations against multi-million dollar claims involving complex issues. Through his creative litigation and trial tactics, Mr. Slavens has participated in the recovery of tens of millions of dollars for the benefit of his clients and class members. He has extensive experience litigating individual and class actions in federal and state court, and arbitrating claims before AAA, FINRA and other arbitration forums. In addition, he is an experienced appellate advocate. Some of Mr. Slavens’ successes include obtaining a jury verdict exonerating his clients of all liability in a complex multimillion dollar case alleging fraud and negligence. After a 25-day jury trial and four days of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Mr. Slavens’ clients. He further represented his clients in their successful defense of the verdict on appeal.
Mr. Slavens has acted as counsel in securities class actions such as Glea F. Bobbs v. Southern Pacific Equities, LLC, involving a multi-million Ponzi scheme. He also handled an arbitration on behalf of nearly 20 investors in Larner, et al v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, et al (alleging misrepresentations and violation of securities laws). He has also represented ratepayers and taxpayers in cases alleging illegal utility fees and taxes imposed by local government in violation of Proposition 218 and Proposition 26. Some of the cases he has prosecuted and/or is currently prosecuting include:
Hobbs, et al. v. Modesto, Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. 2019186 (appointed co-lead counsel in class action alleging illegal taxes disguised as electric rates);
Mahon, et al. v. City of San Diego, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2015-00014540 (appointed co-lead counsel in class action alleging illegal taxes disguised as electric franchise fees);
Eck v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC557082 (appointed co-lead counsel in class action securing $52 million in electric ratepayer refunds and $243 million in injunctive relief)
Rooney v. City of Pasadena, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS145352 (alleging transfer of utility revenue to City’s general fund in violation of Proposition 218 (settled restoring $7.2 million);
Spencer v. City of Burbank, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS145021 (alleging transfer of utility revenue to City’s general fund in violation of Proposition 218 (settled restoring $1.5 million);
Wilson v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2012-00614517 (alleging transfer of utility revenue to City’s general fund in violation of Proposition 218 (settled restoring $3 million);
Palmer v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00938646 (alleging City’s electric utility rates impose a tax in violation of Proposition 26);
Green v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300760 (appointed co-lead counsel in case alleging City’s electric utility rates impose a tax in violation of Proposition 26);
Wyatt v. City of Sacramento, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300760 (obtain judgment that City’s utility rates are invalid and its transfer of funds from its utility funds to its general fund violates Proposition 218; City is appealing);
Komesar v. City of Pasadena, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC677632 (alleging City’s electric utility rates impose a tax in violation of Proposition 26); and
Pearson v. Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection Dist., Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. MSN14-1137 (challenged legality of fire assessments - settled).
Mr. Slavens has also written an article on whistle blower standing under the RICO statutes, and an article titled “They Heard It Through the Grapevine” accepted for publication in Trial Bar News.
He is happy to discuss your potential case. He can be reached at (619) 369-5252 or email@example.com for a free consultation.