Garcia v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2021, No. B297452)
Plaintiff’s husband was killed when the van he was riding in collided with an improperly parked big-rig truck. The appellate court held that the defendant had waived all of the points it raised on appeal by failing to properly preserve them at trial.
Zuniga v. Cherry Avenue Auction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 980.
Plaintiff was injured and her husband was killed while setting up a booth at a swap meet when a 28-foot pole holding an advertising banner came too close to an overhead power line. The owner of the swap meet was held liable for negligence for renting vendor spaces under the power lines without taking any precautions to avoid electrocutions.
Hernandez v. Jensen (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1056
Plaintiff was hired by defendant to provide in-home care to defendant’s parents. Defendant knew that her father kept loaded guns in his home, but she made no attempt to see whether they were stored safely and did not warn plaintiff about them. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries when a loaded gun stored in a closet fell over and discharged.
Pacific, et al. v. A&C Trucking, et al. (Cal.Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2020, No. E070359)
Plaintiffs suffered injuries after the car they were in was rear-ended by a semi-trailer truck. The jury awarded one plaintiff nearly $700,000 in medical expenses and awarded both plaintiffs $3 million each in non-economic damages.
Case name and information withheld for confidentiality
The Ehrlich Law Firm was retained to defend a $21 million personal-injury award in the Ninth Circuit. The case settled on appeal.
Case name and information withheld for confidentiality
The Ehrlich Law Firm was retained to defend a $26.4 million personal-injury award in the Ninth Circuit. The case settled on appeal.
Albarracin v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2020, No. B292895), review denied (Nov. 24, 2020)
Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by a superior while attending a company retreat. Her employer was held liable for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The jury awarded her $250,000 for past emotional distress and $1,950,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the defendant challenged the punitive-damage award as unsupported by sufficient evidence and excessive. The Court of Appeal affirmed the award and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Shuler v. Capital Agricultural Property Services, Inc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 62, review denied (July 29, 2020)
Plaintiffs’ home and horse ranch were destroyed in a landslide precipitated by defendant’s negligent modifications to the slope above the plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs were awarded $1,756,499 in economic damages, but the trial court reduced this amount to $460,283 when it entered judgment, based on an improper application of doctrine of res judicata. The appellate court reinstated the full award and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Wilmot v. First American Title Co. (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020, No. B289375)
Plaintiff sued First American Title Company for overcharging her and thousands of other customers for escrow services. The trial court denied her motion for class certification. The Court of Appeal reversed, directing the trial court to certify the class.
Cruz v. Mathenge (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2019, No. B286067) 2019 WL 926498, reh'g denied (Mar. 22, 2019), review denied (May 15, 2019)
Affirmance of $21.5 million wrongful-death and personal-injury judgments for plaintiffs arising out of defect in Nissan QX 56 SUV.
Pearl v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 475
Affirmance of $12.5 million judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a retaliation/discrimination lawsuit.
Cobb v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. Ct. App., May 1, 2019, No. B287090) 2019 WL 1929976
Affirmance of $10.8mm judgment in favor of plaintiff who was run over with a forklift by a county employee.
Alkayali v. Boukhari (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 5, 2019, No. E066230) 2019 WL 1499478
Affirmance of $4.3 mm breach-of-fiduciary duty judgment for plaintiff.
Lewis v. Ukran (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 886
Affirmance of $1.6mm judgment for plaintiff. The case holds as a matter of first impression, that “in a contested case, a party (typically a defendant) seeking to reduce an award of future damages to present value bears the burden of proving an appropriate method of doing so, including an appropriate discount rate. A party (typically a plaintiff) who seeks an upward adjustment of a future damages award to account for inflation bears the burden of proving an appropriate method of doing so, including an appropriate inflation rate.”
Lujan v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Cal.Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2019, No. B287730)
Affirmance of $1.13 million personal-injury judgment against the MTA by bus rider who suffered multiple displaced fractures of his ribs after being thrown across bus during a sudden turn.
Brown v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., June 20, 2019, No. E069356) 2019 WL 2539179
Affirmance of trial court’s denial of Kaiser’s petition to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s bad-faith case, on the ground that Kaiser’s electronic-enrollment system did not fully comply with Health & Safety Code § 1363.1.
Pierce v. Gray (Cal. Ct. App., May 2, 2019, No. G055432) 2019 WL 1941625
Obtained a reversal of a nominal damages award for the plaintiff and a defense verdict on her husband’s loss-of-consortium claim, based on trial court error in excluding the testimony of her medical expert concerning her medical-expense damages.
Spellman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 20, 2019) Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20762, No. G.056221
Plaintiff sued Chipotle for damages suffered as result of food poisoning at Chipotle. The trial court granted summary judgment for Chipotle. Gary Dordick hired Jeffrey Ehrlich to argue the appeal. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment.
Ferradas Soliz v. City of Big Bear Lake (Cal. Ct. App., July 16, 2019, No. E067555) 2019 WL 3162453
The jury’s verdict awarded the plaintiff over $1 million for past and future medical expenses, but only $50,000 in past general damages and $0 for future general damages. The appellate court’s written tentative opinion was to affirm. Gary Dordick hired Jeffrey Ehrlich to handle the oral argument after the court had issued its tentative opinion. In his oral argument he convinced the court to change its ruling; its final opinion held that the verdict was inadequate as a matter of law and that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on damages.
Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 216 [233 Cal.Rptr.3d 487, 418 P.3d 400], as modified (July 25, 2018)
Holds that the intentional conduct of an employee did not preclude potential coverage for employer on claims against it for negligent hiring and supervision. Clarifies that policies that promise coverage for “accidents” provide coverage for negligent conduct, because “accidents” are a subset of “negligence.” Rejects prevailing view in the California appellate courts and the Ninth Circuit that the unintended consequences of the insured’s intentional acts can never qualify as an “accident.”
Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266 [232 Cal.Rptr.3d 404], review denied (Aug. 8, 2018)
Obtained affirmance of $3.6 million personal-injury award to plaintiff. Holds that injured plaintiff’s recovery of medical expenses is not limited to what the plaintiff’s insurer would have paid if the plaintiff had received care through insurance instead of from medical providers working on a lien. Rather, for the purposes of proving medical expenses at trial, a plaintiff who does not treat through his/her insurance should be considered “non-insured” and treated as if uninsured. The court rejected the defense argument that medical charges from providers who treat on a lien are inherently excessive because they exceed what health insurers would pay their preferred providers for similar treatment. In the Supreme Court, the defense bar and insurance industry filed over 20 amicus requests seeking review or depublication of the decision. The Supreme Court denied review and left the opinion published.
Dunlap v. Folsom Lake Ford (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 2, 2018) Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20298, review denied (May 23, 2018)
Affirmance of $7 million products-liability judgment for plaintiff injured in negligently-serviced automobile that rolled over.
Warner v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 6, 2018)
Obtained reversal of new-trial order remitting $4 million verdict for plaintiff to $875,000 and $500,000 loss-of-consortium claim for spouse to $150,000; original $4.5 million total judgment reinstated and affirmed.
Mateen-Bradford v. City of Compton (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 17, 2018, No. B276236) 2018 WL 1804926
Obtained reversal of defense verdict based on defect in special-verdict form; reversal of the judgment also vacated a $200,000 award against the plaintiff for fees and costs; on retrial the plaintiff prevailed, winning a $600,000 verdict, with fee motions now pending.
Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 692 Fed.Appx. 902, 903
Affirmance of $51 million wrongful-death judgment.
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Co. (9th Cir. 2017) 697 Fed.Appx. 905
Affirmance of $14 million insurance bad-faith verdict in failure-to-settle claim.
Lichtman v. Siemens Industry Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 914 [224 Cal.Rptr.3d 725], reh'g denied (Nov. 28, 2017), review denied (Jan. 17, 2018)
Obtained reversal of summary judgment in favor of contractor whom City hired to maintain the City’s battery-backup system for traffic signals. Held that contractor owed plaintiff (and other drivers) a duty of care in maintaining the back-up system.
Devitt v. Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control (Cal. Ct. App., June 14, 2017, No. B270577) 2017 WL 2570661, review denied (Sept. 20, 2017)
Obtained reversal of dismissal of plaintiff’s wrongful-death claim against L.A. County arising from its failure to impound pack of stray dogs that fatally mauled decedent, holding that County had mandatory duty under relevant ordinance, and was therefore not immune as a matter of law.
Ramirez v. ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 686 Fed.Appx. 435
Reversal of summary judgment in favor of manufacturer of meat grinder in products-liability action. Plaintiff’s hand was yanked into grinder when that failed to turn off when lid was lifted, despite having “failsafe switch” that was supposed to cut power.
Benn v. Fairmont Hotel Company-San Francisco L.P. (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2017, No. A147502) 2017 WL 4988169
Obtained reversal of trial court order refusing to set aside a voluntary dismissal that had inadvertently dismissed the main defendant, which was similarly named to the subsidiary defendants being dismissed.
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257
Obtained affirmance of $90 million summary judgment in favor of plaintiff class in rest-break class action, reversing adverse Court of Appeal opinion. The Supreme Court held that under California law, employers cannot required employees to remain “on call” during rest breaks.
Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363
Held that Brandt fees awarded by trial court post-trial can properly be included in ratio of compensatory to punitive damages for purpose of federal due process review of punitive-damage award, reversing prior cases holding otherwise.
Paregien v. Perez (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2015, No. F067517) 2015 WL 1014194
Affirmance of $15 million wrongful-death award to two children rendered orphans after truck ran over their mother.
Harb v. City of Bakersfield (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 606
Plaintiff, a neonatologist, suffered a stroke and needed immediate medical care. Police negligently concluded that he was drunk and sent away ambulance, delaying care. He survived, but with mental status of a 4-year old. Obtained reversal of defense verdict based on instructional error. Court held, in a matter of first impression, that first responders in California cannot assert a comparative-fault defense against the plaintiff based on the circumstances that caused the plaintiff to require the first-responder’s assistance.