A Litigation & Maritime Law Firm


Our attorneys are aggressive, experienced & effective advocates.

Wright, L’Estrange and Ergastolo (WLE) works on behalf of entrepreneurs and investors, large corporations, small startups, public entities and non-profits. WLE is primarily focused on all aspects of business law, including antitrust, unfair trade practices and unfair competition litigation, compliance, and counseling, regulatory compliance and disputes, securities litigation, real estate matters, employment issues and product liability. In addition, the firm has a highly specialized admiralty and maritime law practice.

With experience litigating and trying nearly every type of business matter, WLE represents clients in federal and state courts, on appeal, and in alternate dispute resolution forums.  Our understanding of and expertise in California law has made WLE a “go-to” firm for national law firms seeking local co-counsel on large-scale matters and in complex litigation.

WLE’s team of trial attorneys strive to provide clients with superior strategic counsel and unparalleled legal representation. Among the firm’s accomplishments are a substantial number of published appellate court decisions, and WLE attorneys are often asked to share their expertise by speaking on panels and individually on the local and national level.

Our business litigators are prominent leaders in the courtroom and in the greater San Diego community. WLE prides itself on its successes on behalf of its clients, its long-term relationships with clients, and its unwavering commitment to practicing law with the highest standards of professionalism.

Contact us to find out how WLE can help your business:

(619) 231-4844

402 W Broadway #1800

San Diego, CA 92101

Latest News

Important Legal Updates


Fourth Circuit: Municipal Licensing, Permitting, and Franchising of Ambulance Services Is Immune from Federal Antitrust Laws

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that when state law authorizes a city to regulate ambulance services through a licensing, permitting, and franchising ordinance, the city’s enforcement of such an ordinance is immune from federal antitrust laws under Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).

0March 2, 2022March 2, 2022
Solar Panel Installation

Ninth Circuit Finds No Antitrust Immunity for Public Utility

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Ellis v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, __ F.4th __; 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2719 (Jan. 31, 2022), is an example of how federal courts evaluate complaints alleging local governments’ violation of federal antitrust laws.

0February 24, 2022February 24, 2022
Blog 05

AB 389 Provides California Counties And Fire Agencies New Contracting Options And Opportunities For Emergency Ambulance Services

On October 4, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 389 (“AB 389”), the first amendment to California’s Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act (“EMS Act”) specifically addressing emergency ambulance service contracting. The new law, which becomes effective on January 1, 2022, represents a significant departure from existing practice and creates new contracting options and opportunities for California counties and fire agencies.

0October 27, 2021February 24, 2022
Blog 06

Federal Law Does Not Bar Class Actions Alleging Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Related To Fee-Based Securities Accounts

In Anderson v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., No. 19-17520 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2021), plaintiff investors brought a class action against defendant stockbrokers for allegedly violating federal securities laws and state-law fiduciary duties when they convinced the investors to switch from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts even though the latter were not suitable for them and their low-trade, “buy-and-hold” investment strategies.

0March 11, 2021February 24, 2022
Blog 05

WLE Secures Victory for California Fire Agencies Against State Regulatory Agency

Last month, the Sacramento Superior Court entered judgment on behalf of our client, the California Fire Chiefs Association, Inc. (“CalChiefs”), and issued a peremptory writ of mandate against the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (“EMSA”), in California Fire Chiefs Association Inc. v. California Emergency Medical Services Authority, No. 34-2019-80003163.

0August 7, 2020February 24, 2022
Blog 04

“Me-Too” Evidence in Gender Discrimination Cases

“Me-too” evidence – that an employer engaged in similar misconduct with employees other than the plaintiff – is often admitted in gender discrimination cases as circumstantial proof of the employer’s intent or motive in the present case.  The recent decision Pinter-Brown v. Regents of University of California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, reminds us that “me-too” evidence must be closely related to the plaintiff’s theory of the case and issues to be admissible.

0June 30, 2020February 24, 2022
Blog 01

Reinforcement of Voters’ Rights to Approve Local Government Taxes

On August 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court granted the City of Oakland’s petition for review in Zolly v. City of Oakland, No. S262634, and denied requests for an order directing depublication of the Court of Appeal opinion, Zolly v. City of Oakland, 47 Cal.App.5th 73 (2020).

0May 20, 2020February 24, 2022
Blog 03

Navigating Risks & Opportunities

COVID-19 significantly impacts, even if temporarily, how private and public sector entities do business. Whether enterprises are dealing with disruptions to their supply chains or retooling their operations to provide emergency medical gear and equipment, business leaders are exploring collaborative efforts with other organizations, including competitors.

0May 10, 2020February 24, 2022
Blog 02

Dismissal Of Taxi Drivers vs Uber

In Uber Techs. Pricing Cases, 46 Cal.App.5th 963 (2020), plaintiffs—several taxi companies and taxi medallion owners—filed a class action lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) alleging that the ride-sharing company engaged in predatory pricing in violation of California’s Unfair Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043 (“UPA”) and Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”). 

0May 1, 2020February 24, 2022