Michael Kibler

Mike is a trial lawyer. He litigates and tries complex commercial cases for large and small companies and individuals. Mike’s trial resume includes multiple plaintiff-side jury verdicts and settlements in commercial cases totaling nearly $300 million. Three of his jury verdicts have been recognized in The National Law Journal’s annual “Top 100 Verdicts” of the year issue. He has represented businesses, private equity funds and their portfolio companies, and financial institutions in litigation covering a wide range of industries, including real estate development and investments, finance and private equity, banking, pharmaceuticals and insurance. Over the past 25 years, Mike also has advised companies on litigation risk in connection with corporate transactions, and has successfully represented financial institutions before regulatory bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. Prior to co-founding Kibler Fowler & Cave, Mike was a litigator at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP for over 18 years (14 years as a partner) in the firm’s New York and Los Angeles offices.

In 2025, the Daily Journal named Mike to its “Top 100 Lawyers” list, which recognizes the most accomplished and influential attorneys in California. In 2023, the Los Angeles Business Journal recognized Mike as one of the top trial lawyers in Los Angeles by naming him a “Leader of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys.” Mike has received an “AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating” by Martindale-Hubble, has been included in U.S. News and World Report’s “Best Lawyers” in the field of Commercial Litigation, and has been named a “Super Lawyer” eight times by Thomson Reuters in the field of Business Litigation. He is a past recipient of the Burton Award for Legal Achievement, which honors the nation’s finest legal writers. Mike is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, a California based forum for litigators and judges to meet and discuss issues important to business trial lawyers.

Updated Oct 2025

• Placentia Development Co. v. Bridgemark Corp. (OCSC 30-2016-00888920): I served as lead trial counsel for Placentia Development Company—an affiliate of national homebuilder Toll Brothers—in a jury trial against an oil company concerning the development rights of land in Orange County, California. After four weeks of testimony, the jury returned a verdict of my client, awarding over $26 million in compensatory damages for breach of contract, nuisance and trespass. And then, following the punitive damages phase of the trial, the jury awarded an additional $10 million in punitive damages. After the trial, the court awarded an additional $5.5 million in discretionary prejudgment interest, bringing the final judgment to nearly $43 million. The verdict was recognized in The National Law Journal “Top 100 Verdicts” of 2019 issue and led to multiple enforcement actions and appellate proceedings. Beyond the verdict, the matter demonstrated our firm’s ability to persist through post-trial litigation and bankruptcy strategy to deliver full value to the client.
  
  
• C.R. v. PLB Management LLC (23-JV-141463): I was retained as lead trial counsel for a large housing provider just two weeks before jury selection in a federal lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and California Disabled Persons Act. The plaintiff sought millions in damages. Working under a compressed timeline, I quickly mastered the record, prevailed on several key evidentiary motions pre-trial, and conducted a one-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The jury ultimately awarded only a small fraction of the damages sought—a 90% reduction in my client’s potential liability. I then moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that no reasonable jury could have reached even that limited verdict based on the evidence. The Court agreed, vacated the entire award, and entered final judgment in favor of my client. This matter highlights my ability to triage complex cases under extreme time pressure and deliver complete defense victories in high-stakes environments.
  
  
• Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC (LASC BC 495595): In 2012, I represented Himelsein Mandel Fund Management (HM), a Brentwood-based hedge fund, in a long-running, high-stakes fraud lawsuit against Fortress Investment Group, with potential damages exceeding $200 million. Filed in 2012, the case involved complex allegations of misrepresentation and contractual misconduct. After years of contentious discovery, Fortress successfully moved to strike HM’s jury demand, forcing the case into a bench trial in 2016. Following five weeks of testimony, the trial court entered judgment against both sides—denying HM’s fraud claims and Fortress’s $100 million cross-claim.  We appealed. In a major win, the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against HM, holding that the enforcement of a New York choice-of-law provision—which waived the right to a jury trial—was contrary to California’s fundamental public policy. The court ruled that denying HM a jury trial was a “structural defect,” ordered the case remanded, and reinstated HM’s fraud claims for jury trial. It also affirmed the denial of Fortress’s cross-claims.  After remand, and following the launch of KF&C, I began to prepare for trial. In October 2020, the court denied Fortress’s second motion for summary adjudication, clearing the way for a jury trial. Despite multiple delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we continued to press forward and prepared the case for trial. In November 2021, the matter was resolved on favorable terms during a mediation with the Hon. Louis Meisinger (Ret.).   This case is significant not only for its financial stakes and legal complexity, but also for the important appellate ruling it produced—preserving the right to a jury trial under California law despite contractual provisions to the contrary.
  
  
• Toll Brothers, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Co. (Orange Cty. Super. Ct. 30-2020-01152770): I
  represented Toll Brothers in a $40 million insurance bad faith and breach of contract lawsuit over the insurer’s denial of coverage for construction delay-related “soft costs” following storm damage. The insurer relied on delay and use-of-money exclusions to deny the claim. After substantial discovery, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, adopted our policy interpretation, and allowed our bad faith claim to proceed to trial. The decision set the stage for a favorable resolution (on the proverbial courthouse steps right before jury selection) and reaffirmed critical principles of policyholder rights in complex first-party insurance claims. These cases reflect my commitment to strategic, high-stakes litigation and my ability to deliver strong results through rigorous preparation, decisive execution, and client-focused advocacy.

• Arbitration
• Commercial disputes

• Banking
• Construction and materials
• Financial services
• Insurance

• J.D. - Seton Hall University School of Law - 1997
• B.A. - Seton Hall University - 1992

• Association of Business Trial Lawyers

   

• New York - 2000
• New Jersey - 1997
• California - 2006
• Pennsylvania - 2022
• U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York - 2002
• U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey - 1997
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California - 2006
• U.S. District Court, Central District of California - 2006
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California - 2006
• U.S. District Court, Southern District of California - 2006
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Bankruptcy - 2024
• U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - 2012
• U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals - 2022