In January 2019, Susan, as lead trial counsel, won a complex “bet the company” trial for a prominent family conglomerate involving nearly $17 million in investments, immeasurable goodwill and reputation, and over $45 million in land value.  This high-stakes case involved extensive investigations of professional fraudsters and enormous amount of time litigating and proving their lies.

In October 2018, Susan, as lead trial counsel, secured a complete reversal of a medical license suspension recommendation for a preeminent chief surgeon at a major medical institution in the country.  This case involved extensive investigation and analysis of uncorroborated evidence, as well as witness inconsistencies and statements, all of which helped prove the recommendation was not founded.

In August 2018, an international company and executive officer sought Susan’s help in petitioning the INS for approval of an intracompany transferee executive’s L-1A, which was denied.  Susan had less than 14 days to review and analyze nearly 5 years’ worth of records, interview all pertinent witnesses and prepare and file an evidentiary petition.  In January 2019, the INS granted their petition.

In March 2017, Susan, as lead trial counsel, won a complete dismissal of a construction contract case on behalf of a multi-national corporation on the eve of trial. This case involved extensive forensic investigations involving fraud, obstruction, and frivolous claims.

In September-December 2016, Susan, as lead trial counsel, won numerous defense settlements for her corporate client involving alleged labor code/employment law violations, and wrongful termination based on age, race, and retaliation.

In January 2016, Susan, as lead trial counsel, won an environmental trial in one case, and a summary judgment motion involving land use/right-of-way issues in another case, back-to-back.

In March 2015, Susan, as co-lead trial counsel, won a not guilty verdict for her client, a real estate agent, on 16 counts of mortgage fraud in the United States District Court, Central District. The Indictment filed by the United States Attorneys’ Office charged her client, along with 7 other co-defendants, with wire fraud, bank fraud, and false statements to FDIC banks. 5 co-defendants pleaded guilty. Susan’s client pleaded not guilty and went to trial. Approximately 200 witnesses and over 120,000 pages of documentary evidence were involved. The FBI investigated this case for nearly 5 years. During trial, Susan’s cross-examination of the lead FBI agent, who was caught lying on the stand about witness recordings, became the focal point of the front page news on the Los Angeles Daily Journal entitled “Recordings Expected in Modern Prosecutions.” The credibility of the FBI agent was destroyed, which many trial observers believed resulted in a not guilty verdict.

In January 2015, Susan, as lead trial counsel, won a $35 million case for her client, an international businessman, who was accused of sexual battery, battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. This was a very complex case involving extensive domestic sting operations, international undercover investigations, DNA, forensic, and toxicology evidence, mental examinations and related “psychological damages,” medical evaluations and various expert testimony on a wide-range of issues. After a 5-week trial and 3 days of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Susan’s client.  This case was featured in an article entitled  “California Fellow Susan Yu Successfully Defends International Businessman Against Sexual Assault Accusations”

In April 2014, Susan Yu obtained a Dismissal of 9 felony counts in a complex white-collar criminal case for a prominent family member of a corporate giant who was a victim of criminal threats. The case involved extensive international undercover investigations.

In March 2014, Susan Yu obtained a Dismissal of 4 felony counts in a complex “three strike” drug offense case for a client with a military school background, falsely accused of the crimes he did not commit. The case involved questions of constitutional violations (substantive and due process) and extensive intra-state undercover investigations.