Angelo Nicholas Georggin, who founded Georggin & Georggin with his wife Despina, began his legal career more than 31 years ago. Over that time, he has focused his practice on complex civil litigation matters in California state and federal courts, including cases involving employment, business, personal injury, real estate, and construction.
Mr. Georggin has devoted a significant portion of his career to class and representative actions and has served as one of the court-approved class counsel in more than 40 state and federal employment and consumer class actions in which aggregate settlements in excess of $145 million were approved. Mr. Georggin is also an experienced construction attorney and has represented clients in all aspects of commercial and residential development and construction litigation.
Mr. Georggin is a San Diego native. He earned his Juris Doctor degree, summa cum laude, from Western State University College of Law, graduating in December 1993 as the class Salutatorian. During law school, Mr. Georggin served as an Associate Editor and Lead Articles Editor for the Western State University Law Review and was selected to publish a case note. He received American Jurisprudence Awards in Contracts, Legal Writing, and Corporations. Mr. Georggin was also a Legal Research Intern for the late Justice Henry T. Moore, Jr., of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three. Mr. Georggin became licensed to practice law in the State of California in June 1994.
​
​
Practice Areas
​
Employment and Labor Law
Class & Representative Actions
Business & General Litigation
Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
Construction Litigation
Real Estate
Writs and Appeals
​​
Jurisdictions Licensed to Practice
​
California
​
Court Admissions
​
California Supreme Court, 1994
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1994
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 1995
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2002
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2025
​
Legal Education
​
J.D., summa cum laude, Western State University College of Law, 1993
​
Publications
​
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee: When a Public Forum is Not a Public Forum for First Amendment Purposes (1993) 20 W. St. U. L. Rev. 715.
​
Representative Matters
The following are examples of matters in which Mr. Georggin served as counsel, many of which were handled while he was a partner at predecessor firms:
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 55,576 employees against a nationwide financial institution, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $41 million.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 698 employees against a multistate restaurant chain, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $900,000.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 42,863 employees against a nationwide electronics retailer, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $26.99 million.
• Represented a school district employee in arbitration and subsequent litigation relating to her termination following a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The case was resolved through a negotiated settlement.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 10,738 employees against a nationwide office-supply company, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $14.75 million.
​
• Civil rights matter involving alleged excessive force during an arrest, in a case that resulted in a confidential six-figure settlement.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 9,196 employees against a nationwide cellular-telephone provider, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $10.7 million.
• Successfully opposed removal under the Class Action Fairness Act in the United States District Court, Central District of California, resulting in remand to state court based on waiver principles applied to the specific facts of the case.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 2,930 employees against a nationwide cellular-telephone provider, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $7.5 million.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 5,677 employees against a nationwide rent-to-own company, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $4.95 million.
​
• Personal injury case in which a driver was injured due to an allegedly unsafe roadway condition, in a case that resulted in a negotiated confidential six-figure settlement.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 4,889 employees against a nationwide clothing retailer, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $3.81 million.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 108 employees against a restaurant, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $200,000.
• Wage-and-hour class action involving approximately 1,062 employees against a California credit union, in a case that resulted in a court-approved class settlement of approximately $700,000.
​
• Personal injury case in which a passenger was injured due to an allegedly unsafe roadway condition, in a case that resulted in a negotiated settlement of approximately $1.125 million.
• Construction defect action on behalf of a publicly traded gaming company involving alleged negligent construction of a glass atrium in its corporate headquarters, which resulted in the replacement of the atrium glass and reimbursement of related costs and fees.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Disclaimer: Attorney Advertising. These examples describe matters in which Mr. Georggin served as counsel, many of which were handled while he was a partner at predecessor firms. Class action recoveries represent the total amounts approved by the courts and do not reflect the amount received by any individual client. Results depend on the specific facts and law of each case. Importantly, prior results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes.