Case studies and results details

Contractor Not Liable in Mold Matter

/in

Physician plaintiff owned an ocean front condominium in Long Beach.  Plaintiff alleged water intrusion from upstairs unit’s master bath area, resulting in extensive mold and adverse health effects preventing plaintiff from working as a physician.  Our client replaced the upstairs bathtub and shower enclosure.

Following our expert’s testing of the bathtub and shower, Daniel G. Pezold, Michael J. Nunez and Adrian J. Barrio filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was joined by a defendant who earlier inspected the upstairs unit. The court granted our motion and the Joinder. The Homeowner’s Association subsequently settled with the plaintiff. The estate of the owner of the upstairs unit proceeded to trial. The time for appeal of the Motion for Summary Judgment has passed.

Superior Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Supermarket

/in

In a case handled by Guy R. Gruppie and Anastasia K. Mazzella, supermarket customer Martha Maya claimed that she slipped and fell due to fluid that Jons Marketplace carelessly and negligently allowed to remain on the floor in one of the store’s aisles.  She alleged that the fluid constituted a dangerous condition, which Jons Marketplace knew or, in the exercise of responsible care, should have known existed in sufficient time to make the floor safe or warn shoppers of the danger.

On December 10, 2007, Judge Charles Stoll of the Glendale branch of the Los Angeles the Superior Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Jons Marketplace because the evidence demonstrated that Jons Marketplace had no knowledge of a dangerous condition nor did they have constructive notice and they reasonably exercised the duty of care owed by conducting hourly inspections.

On the date of the alleged incident the subject aisle was formally inspected pursuant to store procedures shortly before plaintiff’s alleged fall; however, no potential hazardous conditions were observed or discovered at that time and no employee was notified or aware of the dangerous condition prior to plaintiff’s slip and fall. The plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of negligence based on premises liability because she could not produce substantial, let alone sufficient, evidence that Jons Marketplace breached its duty of care.

M&C Receives Favorable Judgment in Property Dispute

/in

Robert H. Panman recently received a judgment in favor of clients who were defendants in an action for Nuisance, Damages and Seeking Injunctive Relief.

The dispute was between two neighbors who owned homes in the Windsor Square area of Los Angeles. The plaintiff sued her neighbors, claiming that a portion of their home, which was built and permitted in 1948, encroached onto her property. In addition to this claim, the plaintiff asserted at trial that trees, plants and other foliage between the two properties constituted a nuisance and had caused her harm including damage to a garage structure that had been built in the 1920’s for which she sought a Mandatory Injunction and damages. Robert Panman was lead counsel for defendant.

San Diego Jury Awards Almost $200,000 Less Than Defense Offer to Compromise in Admitted Liability Case

/in

Plaintiff Klingler was an active duty Marine, injured during the course and scope of his training with the United States Marine Corps. He was prevented from suing the United States Marine Corps because of the Ferris Doctrine but not, over objection, from pursuing the contactor he charged was responsible for his injury.

Strategic Operations was hired by the United States Marine Corps to enhance the training environment for mock training scenarios. Rocky Mohsen, an employee role-player for co-defendant Strategic Operations, had been on the job for about two weeks when he was asked by a Sergeant of the U.S. Marine Corps to participate in an impromptu interrogation-training scenario.  The United States Marine Corps had declared plaintiff captured and bound, gagged and blindfolded private Klingler.

During the course of the interrogation, Mr. Mohsen fired his plugged AK-47 weapon loaded with blanks too close to the leg of plaintiff and caused an injury by the discharge of expelled gasses. Plaintiff underwent two debridement surgeries and alleged he was caused a nerve injury, which resulted in a chronic pain problem, requiring heavy usage of narcotic medications. Plaintiff also alleged posttraumatic stress disorder associated with the injury.

The San Diego jury determined that plaintiff had not been entirely truthful in his testimony, largely based on a subrosa video showing him changing a flat tire, and Myspace downloaded videos showing plaintiff shooting weapons and singing drunk karaoke. The jury found the United States Marine Corps 75% responsible for the accident and Mr. Mohsen was found 25% responsible on the admitted negligence cause of action, but the jury returned defense verdicts on Battery and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress causes of action.

Plaintiff’s net award was $55,750. The client, defensed by Jefferson S. Smith and Scott J. Loeding, and co-defendant, had collectively offered plaintiff $250,000 by way of a Statutory Offer to Compromise. Plaintiff, whose lowest settlement demand was $1.7 million, is likely to owe defendants after cost bill issues are heard by the court.

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Victorious In Major Personal Injury Action – Summary Judgment Granted

/in

Senior Partner Guy R. Gruppie, Partners Corine Zygelman and Gina E. Och and Associate Adrian J. Barrio have successfully defended Mitsubishi Cement Corporation in a major personal injury action filed on behalf of a truck driver who was seriously injured in a tractor-trailer accident.

Judge Joseph E. DiLoreto, of the South District of the Los Angeles Superior Court, granted Mitsubishi Cement’s summary judgment motion, finding as a matter of law that Mitsubishi Cement did not cause or contribute to the incident that occurred after the driver had picked up a load of cement at a facility owned by the defendant. The driver lost control of the tractor-trailer as it rounded a curve, leading to a crash where the driver suffered serious and alleged permanent injuries with medical bills reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mitsubishi Cement submitted undisputed evidence that its loading facility at the Port of Long Beach contained electronic and computerized scales that included fail-safe devices to prohibit any tractor-trailer from leaving the facility in an over-loaded condition. Moreover, the moving party successfully argued that the same driver had made other prior load deliveries from the Mitsubishi Cement facility with bills of lading issued each time confirming the gross load of the vehicle was under the 80,000-pound cut off. As such, the court was able to conclude that factors other than the conduct of Mitsubishi Cement — including, quite possibly, the conduct of the driver himself — were substantial factors in the occurrence of the accident. At a pending trial against other defendants, plaintiffs are expected to seek a total award exceeding seven figures.

Jury Unanimously Rejects Judge’s $21 Million Personal Injury Suit

/in

A Van Nuys jury on Friday rejected U.S. District Judge George P. Schiavelli’s claim that he was entitled to $21 million in damages resulting from severe injuries that he sustained in an alleged escalator accident at an Encino shopping center.

A nine-woman, three-man panel took less than two hours to determine that Peppy LLC was not negligent in its operation/maintenance of its escalators and that Schiavelli has simply lost his footing and fell in the August 12, 2005 mishap at the Encino Shopping Center.

“I am very gratified for this verdict because it truly represents the evidence, and the jury was able to see the evidence accurately without concern that the plaintiff happened to be a respected judge,” said Peppy attorney Russell S. Wollman, a partner in Los Angeles-based Murchison & Cumming. “My client’s escalators functioned perfectly on the day of Judge Schiavelli’s accident.”

Browne Greene, attorney for the former Superior Court Judge who was appointed to the federal bench in 2004 by President Bush, had asked the jury to award his client millions in damages for medical bills, lost earnings, impaired future earnings and pain and suffering.

Schiavelli claimed that damage to his knees, back and shoulder were such that his ability to secure lucrative pay later in his legal career as a private judge was threatened. He attended only part of the trial with use of a walker, necessitated by recent knee surgery that he claimed was required because of the incident.

Hotel Bel-Air Not Liable For Alleged Wedding Reception Fall

/in

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has thrown the case of a wealthy real estate developer who claimed that he had slipped and suffered severe injuries during a wedding reception at the posh Hotel Bel-Air out of court.

Judge Linda Lefkowitz granted the hotel’s motion for summary judgment against Alvin Weintraub because he could not establish that the hotel created, or knew of, any substance that purportedly existed on some stairs adjacent to the area of the wedding ceremony that he attended on Nov. 15, 2006. Murchison & Cumming Senior Partner Guy R. Gruppie and Associates Megan R. Peitzke and Anastasia K. Mazzella successfully argued that the stairs included all appropriate anti-slip materials and could not as a matter of law be considered a dangerous condition. Plaintiff testified at deposition that he thought he slipped on water, but he was never able to confirm what substance, if any, was involved in his accident.

Weintraub, 64, claimed permanent injuries to his neck, back, hips and legs and testified that he was unable to participate in several lucrative real estate deals as a result of the incident. As such, he was expected to seek several hundred thousand dollars in damages if the matter proceeded to trial.

Plaintiff was represented by John C. Torjesen, President of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles in 2007.

$6.2 Million Acquisition Success

/in

M&C recently represented a German company involved in the steel business in acquiring a California construction company specializing in geotechnical and post-tensioning work. The acquisition was structured as a stock purchase and was primarily handled by Daniel K. Robyn, both a California and German attorney. The firm advised its client during intense negotiations with the seller, conducted the legal due diligence, coordinated the financial due diligence, and took the lead in preparing the purchase and closing documents. After challenging negotiations between buyer and seller and their respective counsel regarding the parties’ obligations under the purchase contract, both parties agreed on mutually acceptable terms so that the transaction successfully closed in July. The client is now looking forward to expanding its business operations on the West Coast.

Plaintiff Dismisses Realty Management Company

/in

Plaintiff and defendant, Sasha King, were both tenants at a “pet friendly” complex managed by Pinnacle Realty. Defendant King was also employed by Pinnacle Realty, and received benefits related to her tenancy at the complex. King’s Akita allegedly bit plaintiff on her hand, and shook her by the sleeve for a prolonged period. Plaintiff claimed that she required medical treatment for neck and back injuries and exacerbated pre-existing Multiple Sclerosis.

Plaintiff initially filed suit solely against King, but later retained counsel who amended the Complaint to name Pinnacle Realty as a defendant when she learned that King did not have renters insurance. Plaintiff alleged the managers were negligent in not following their own pet policies regarding the weight limitations for dogs, and for not requiring King to obtain renters insurance due to her employment with Pinnacle. On behalf of Pinnacle Realty, Scott J. Loeding and Robert M. Scherk argued that, pursuant to California Supreme Court and Court of Appeals authority, there can be no liability for a property owner or manager unless there is previous actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities. There was no evidence that King’s dog had ever bitten anyone else.

Plaintiff settled with King shortly before trial, but rejected Pinnacle’s initial settlement offer and the decreased amount offered after the Settlement Conference. Before trial, we advised plaintiff’s counsel that he had two days to accept our final offer of a waiver of costs in exchange for a Dismissal, that no money would be paid on behalf of Pinnacle, and that if Pinnacle was not dismissed, after we prevailed at trial, we would pursue our costs and plaintiff’s settlement obtained from King would be exhausted. One day after making this demand, plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the offer.

Published Opinion on Bystander Claim for Emotional Distress Damages

/in

Edmund G. Farrell, III Senior Partner in Charge of the Law & Appellate section of the firm, was successful in defeating a Petition for Writ of Mandate following the granting of a motion for summary adjudication. The opinion was ordered published by the Court of Appeals and can be found at Ra v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 142, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 539.

In this case a store patron and his wife filed a complaint against the store alleging causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander as to wife, with a related claim by patron for loss of consortium; and negligent infliction of emotional distress as to wife as a direct victim in the zone of danger, also with a loss of consortium claim by patron, after patron was struck in the head by a store sign while shopping in store with wife. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the store as to the wife’s claims. The Court of Appeals, in denying a Petition for Writ of Mandate, held that the wife of the store patron was not a percipient witness to and did not have contemporaneous awareness of patron’s injuries, as required to establish a bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Most importantly, the Court held that although a plaintiff may establish presence at the scene, for the purpose of a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, through non-visual sensory perception, someone who hears an accident but does not then know it is causing injury to a relative does not have a viable bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even if the missing knowledge is acquired moments later. The plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court.