Foley & Mansfield
Foley & Mansfield

Peter B. Langbord

Partner - Los Angeles


Bar Admissions: California; U.S. District Court, Central District of California; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York; U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Practice Groups: Banking & Finance, Business & Corporate, Commercial Litigation, Construction Litigation; Employment, Environmental, Insurance Coverage, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Real Estate, Toxic Tort / Mass Tort

Education: Pepperdine University, 1989, JD, Associate Editor, Pepperdine Law Review; California State University, 1986, BA, Economics

Memberships: California State Bar


Peter Langbord is a partner in Foley & Mansfield’s Los Angeles office. An experienced trial attorney who has defended multiple cases to verdict, his practice is centered on real estate, commercial and toxic tort litigation.

Peter's experience in complex real estate-related matters includes property damage claims, title disputes, eminent domain and environmental contamination cases. Recently, he resolved a case for a prominent property owner sued by a Northern California Redevelopment Agency for eminent domain and violation of California’s Polanco Act. Peter favorably resolved the case, allowing the client to retain ownership of the property and minimized the cost of remediation by requiring prior property owners to share in remediation expenses. He also handled the amicable resolution of a significant personal injury matter brought by a tenant against a Southern California commercial landlord wherein the tenant claimed the landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability.

His diverse business and corporate law practice includes secured transactions, forgery, broker malpractice, easements, and negotiable instruments. He regularly handles subrogation claims and enforcement of judgments for a national title insurer.

Peter also defends manufacturers and premises owners in asbestos exposure personal injury matters. He is noted for his practice in federal court, in which he has successfully removed scores of cases from state court by invoking federal officer removal jurisdiction and asserting the military contractor defense. 

In the coverage arena, Peter has handled a variety of coverage disputes involving both occurrence and claims-made CGL, title, professional and homeowner's policies. This includes underlying claims for environmental property damage, toxic exposure, and real estate disputes (broker malpractice and title claims).

A former amateur state surfing competitor and road racing cyclist, Peter enjoys golf, travel, road cycling and working out, including plyometrics, personal training, spinning and pilates. He is also studying French.

We represent our clients with creativity, simplicity, clarity and brevity, coupled with a slavish attention to detail.


  • Integrated Financial Solutions vs. Bank of America (Negotiable Instruments/Forgery)
  • Land Title Insurance Co., et al. vs. Dusko Cavic (Negotiable Instruments/Forgery)
  • Gregory Adler vs. Stewart Bloom, et al.(Accountant Malpractice/Stock Advice)
  • Tommie Williams vs. Carver Pump Company, Inc. (Asbestos Exposure)
  • Ernesto Escamilla vs. American Standard, Inc. (Asbestos Exposure)
  • George LaChapelle vs. Bondex International (Asbestos Exposure)
  • Robert Treggett vs. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Asbestos Exposure)
  • City of Pomona vs. John Michael Faull, et al. (Environmental- RCRA) In this long running matter alleging chemical contamination (PCE) on a site in a redevelopment zone in Pomona, Peter successfully defended his client against the City which sought substantial monetary damages under federal and state law.
  • City of Pittsburg, CA v. Marine Express, Inc.(Environmental) Represented Marine Express in Polanco Act suit brought by redevelopment agency seeking an order forcing client to remediate oil based contamination on property recently purchased by my client. On client behalf countersued all prior landowners of property, including prominent oil company, and ultimately obtained funds from those parties which helped fund settlement with City.
  • Appellate - Nev-Visions Sports v. Sorem/McAdam/Bartells, (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 303 (Accountant Malpractice/Fraud)
  • Bello v. Integrity Property Management et al. (Landlord/tenant; Constructive Eviction)
  • Litkoff et al. v. Sixteen Forty-Three Twelfth St. Homeowners Ass’n (Administration of HOA)
  • Kimberling et al. v. Amcord, Inc. et al. (Asbestos Exposure)


May 10, 2016
The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act: The Stakes Have Never Been Higher For California’s Medical Marijuana Growers And Operators

The smoke has finally cleared. Nearly twenty years after California became the first state in the nation to legalize medical marijuana, California approved the first statewide regulation of medical marijuana.


December 16, 2014
Successfully Defending Environmental Law Case Against the City of Pomona, California

In June 2006, the U.S. District Court of Central California found in favor of Calsol, Inc. a chemical distribution company no longer in use, in a long-running environmental law case alleging chemical contamination on a site in the city of Pomona.


February 5, 2014
Langbord Featured Panelist at Upcoming Perrin "Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference"

Peter Langbord, a partner in Foley & Mansfield’s Los Angeles office, will be a featured panelist at the upcoming Perrin “Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation” conference March 17-18 in Beverly Hills, CA.



  • Presiding Judge, HarrisMartin's California Asbestos Litigation: Trial 101 Workshop, May 2017
  • Key Jurisdictional Updates: California State-of-Asbestos Litigation Presentation, Perrin Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference, 2014
  • The Dissolution of the Asbestos MDL; Perrin Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference, 2013


  • Monetary Sanctions: Are They Insurable? (1988). L.A. Lawyer
  • California Supreme Court Survey 16. Pepperdine Law Review 176, 218, 492