Case studies and results details

Defense Verdict in Alleged Toxic Mold Case

In a matter tried by Robert M. Scherk of the firm’s San Diego office, Plaintiff, Harold Brody, was a tenant in a low income, senior citizen apartment building in San Diego know as the CCBA Garden Apartments. Plaintiff occupied a top unit close to the roof line. Defendant, Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (“CCBA”) is the legal owner of the building, and defendant, Barker Management managed and maintained the property.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to properly construct, repair and/or maintain the building so that his unit was exposed to rain. Plaintiff claimed that rain water and residue from the roof repeatedly ran down the side of the building and was deposited onto his deck and heat pump. As a result, plaintiff claimed his pre-existing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Fibromyalgia worsened, his apartment was over-run with mold, and that his lung cancer stemmed from “toxic mold conditions in his apartment.” Plaintiff argued that the actions and/or inactions of the defendants amounted to a breach of the warranty of habitability; violations of California Health & Safety Code section 17920.3; nuisance; and gross negligence.

Plaintiff ultimately succeeded in getting the City of San Diego’s Department of Code Compliance to issue a Notice of Violation to CCBA, requiring them to carry out various repairs. During the repair process, plaintiff was housed at a residential hotel at defendants’ expense. Later the City inspectors concluded that the problems had been rectified, but plaintiff disagreed, and sued the various inspectors involved, only to have that suit thrown out of court.

Defendants obtained all of plaintiff’s relevant medical records and established that plaintiff’s lung condition had not worsened since he moved into the building. Defendants established that there was no likely connection between the minor moisture intrusion into his apartment and his ongoing complaints of shortness of breath, dizziness, and other related complaints. Defendants argued that his lung cancer diagnosis in February 2002 had no relationship to the conditions in his apartment, but was most likely related to plaintiff smoking 2 packs of cigarettes per day for 20-30 years. Defendants argued that the only unacceptable levels of mold ever confirmed in plaintiff’s apartment were found under his bathroom sink.

The case went to mediation in March of 2002, at which time defendants agreed to settle for $33,000 and some requested repairs. Plaintiff reneged on the settlement and defendants filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement, which was denied on procedural grounds. The plaintiff learned he had lung cancer around this time. From that point forward, plaintiff never made a realistic settlement demand, and prior to trial indicated that he would settle for no less than $250,000.

After a three day jury trial in San Diego Superior Court, in which plaintiff represented himself, the jury deliberated approximately 2 1/2 hours before returning a 12-0 defense verdict on for both defendants, finding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof for any of his causes of action.

Collapsed Foot Stool Raises Indemnity And Defense Issues

Guy R. Gruppie, Tina D. Varjian and Robert R. Clayton successfully obtained a motion for summary judgment on behalf of 99 Cents Only Stores.

Plaintiff, a 76 year-old woman, purchased a foot stool from a 99 Cents Only Store and alleged that it collapsed while she was making coffee. The footstool was manufactured and then sold to 99 Cents Only Stores by another company pursuant to a purchase order. The purchase order provided that the manufacturer was required to defend and indemnify 99 Cents Only Stores for any claims arising out of the use of the footstool.

When the plaintiff sued 99 Cents Only Stores, the company tendered its defense to the manufacturer of the footstool. The manufacturer refused to indemnify and defend claiming that 99 Cents Only Stores, among other things, did not follow the manufacturer’s internal protocol for tendering the defense. The manufacturer claimed that 99 Cents Only Stores was at fault for failing to warn customers that the footstool was suitable for children only. The defense filed a motion for summary judgment on the manufacturer’s cross-complaint for equitable indemnity and a motion for summary adjudication on its own cross-complaint against the manufacturer for causes of action for breach of contract, express indemnity and equitable indemnity. The motion was filed on the grounds that the manufacturer expressly agreed pursuant to the terms of the purchase order to defend and indemnify 99 Cents Only Stores for actions involving its product.

The court granted the motion for summary adjudication finding that the purchase order was clear and unambiguous and that the manufacturer breached its contractual duty to defend and was expressly obligated to indemnify 99 Cents Only Stores.

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics Receives Dismissal from Plaintiff in Product Liability Action

Guy R. Gruppie and Sunhee Kang Rosales obtained a dismissal on behalf of Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics, USA in a negligence action where an elderly man claimed personal injuries as result of a purported malfunction of a Monterey Park mall’s escalator system.

Plaintiff, in his 80s, was traveling upward on an escalator maintained by Mitsubishi when he claims the escalator stopped but the handrail continued to move, causing him to fall and suffer personal injuries.

Undertaking aggressive discovery, the defense demonstrated that the escalator and handrail could only work in unison, and further developed evidence to suggest that plaintiff fell for reasons unrelated to any elevator malfunction.

The matter was settled by the Monterey Park mall while Mitsubishi was dismissed from the suit.

Another Defense Verdict for Freightliner

Richard C. Moreno recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation in a Lemon Law action. Plaintiffs alleged that Freightliner had breached the terms of its express warranty by failing to repair numerous alleged defects and non-conformities relating to the chassis of a motor home. The plaintiffs testified that the motor home continually pulled to the left since the day of purchase. The plaintiffs also alleged that defects to the box or bottom side of the coach had not been properly secured to the chassis, which also caused pulling to the left and other problems associated with the motor home.

Freightliner contended that the motor home had been repaired and that it had not breached the terms of its warranty. Freightliner also claimed that the plaintiffs were overly sensitive in regard to the manner in which a motor home is designed to track the roadway and that the plaintiffs were unfamiliar with the manner in which an air ride suspension chassis operates.

The plaintiffs requested that the jury reimburse them for the purchase price, down payment, incidental and consequential damages totaling $198,000. The plaintiffs also requested treble damages in the amount of $396,000. It is believed that the plaintiffs attorneys in this case had amassed some $350,000 in attorneys’ fees which Freightliner would have been ordered to pay in the event of an adverse verdict, as attorney fees can be recovered in Lemon Law actions.

The jury returned a defense verdict.

This case marks the third Lemon Law defense verdict that Richard C. Moreno has obtained on behalf of Freightliner. Richard C. Moreno is an associate in the Los Angeles Office and focuses his practice on product liability matters. Rebecca Sobie, an associate in the Los Angeles office drafted the motions for this case.

Defense Verdict In Wrongful Death Suit

William T. DelHagen and Paul R. Flaherty of the firm’s Product Liability Group won a defense verdict in a wrongful death case arising from a single car rollover accident on I-5 near Fresno. Eric P. Weiss of the Law and Motion department provided essential support, including winning a critical Motion for Protective Order to protect the client’s trade secrets and confidential business information.

Plaintiff’s decedent, Charles Snyder, a charismatic young commercial banker, was returning to San Francisco from San Diego with a friend, Amber Cagle, at the wheel of his car. The left rear tire suffered an impact which caused the tire to fail several hundred miles later, while traveling between 80 and 90 miles per hour. The driver over-corrected, causing the vehicle to leave the road and roll several times, inflicting fatal injuries on decedent Snyder.

Decedent’s parents, James and Margaret Snyder, sued Winston Tire Company, which allegedly sold the tire; The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, which manufactured the tire, and the driver, Amber Cagle, alleging causes of action in strict products liability and negligence. When plaintiffs proved unable to articulate an independent negligence claim against Winston, Goodyear assumed Winston’s defense.

After protracted discovery disputes, the matter proceeded to trial solely on a manufacturing defect theory. At trial, plaintiffs’ expert alleged that the tire’s steel belts were not correctly located within the tire and that the rubber under the tread area as too thin, causing the tire to fail to survive an ordinary impact. Goodyear presented evidence that the tire met the applicable manufacturing tolerances and that the construction of the tire was not related to its failure. Instead, the impact on the tire experienced was so severe that it visibly damaged the aluminum rim and breached the inner liner of the tire, ultimately causing the tire to fail.

The jury deliberated almost four days before returning a defense verdict.

Dismissal of Libel Action on Demurrer Upheld by the Court of Appeal

Plaintiff and Defendant, both scientists and professors, collaborated with several colleagues in a project which included scientific research, case and case studies for the purpose of writing a scientific journal. Defendant and Plaintiff disagreed over the control of the project and openly exchanged emails about their disagreements, which were delivered to all project participants. The emails reflected challenges to each others findings, support and practices concerning the project. Plaintiff was not pleased that his findings were being challenged and filed an action for libel against Defendant.

Defense argued that the communications were statements of opinions rather than facts and therefore not actionable unless provable false facts could reasonable be implied from the opinions. The case was dismissed and Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the demurrer filed on behalf of Defendant and dismissing the action for libel filed by Plaintiff.

This matter was handled by Michael J. Nunez and Pascale Gagnon-Morris.

Defense Verdict Obtained at Trial of Wrongful Death Action

Robert M. Scherk and Ian C. Fusselman, recently represented Leong Kuba Sea Products and obtained a defense verdict in a wrongful death action where the 12 year-old and 10 year-old plaintiffs sought damages for the death of their mother decedent, Maria Aviles, in an automobile accident.

The accident occurred while Ms. Aviles was traveling in the front seat of a car driven by her best friend and co-worker, defendant Maria Chavez. Defendant Chavez attempted to exit the freeway from the No. 3 lane cutting in front of a San Diego transit bus in the No. 4 lane. At the same time, a truck delivering fish for Leong Kuba Sea products was stopped at the side of the freeway with its flashers activated. The bus could not avoid colliding with Ms. Chavez’s car and as a result pushed the car into the fish truck. Ms. Aviles died at the scene of the accident.

The California Highway Patrol report concluded that the sole fault of the accident was the manner in which defendant Maria Chavez was operating her car. She was cited for unsafe lane change and vehicular manslaughter, and later pled nolo contendere to negligent homicide. However, this information was kept out of evidence at the time of the trial by plaintiffs.

There was never any dispute defendant Maria Chavez was the primary cause of the accident; the primary liability issue at trial was whether defendants San Diego Transit and their driver and/or Leong Kuba Sea Products and their driver had any liability. Plaintiffs alleged that co-defendant San Diego Transit and their driver were liable for failing to brake sooner when defendant Chavez changed lanes. Plaintiffs also alleged that Leong Kuba Sea Produts and their driver were also negligent for stopping along the freeway without legal cause to do so. Plaintiffs claimed that had the fish truck not stopped his truck on the side of the freeway, Ms. Chavez’s car would not have been pushed by the bus into his truck and Maria Aviles would not have died.

Prior to trial, Plaintiffs made only one settlement demand for a total of $500,000. In closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award each plaintiff $100 per day for the approximate life expectancy of their mother, which totaled just under $3,000,000.00.

After a six day jury trial, which included the testimony of 23 witnesses, the jury deliberated for one hour and returned 12-0 defense verdicts for San Diego Transit, Leong Kuba Sea Products and their respective drivers.

Robert M. Scherk tried this case and Ian Fusselman prepared the trial briefs, motions in limine and conducted significant research throughout the trial. Both attorneys are resident in Murchison & Cumming’s San Diego office.

Summary Judgment Granted in Product Liability Action

Guy R. Gruppie and Holly N. Boyer successfully defended Pokka USA, a brewer/bottler of soft drinks including Arizona Green Tea, in a products liability lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged that the bottle he purchased at a local supermarket was adulterated with an insect, which caused mold to develop in the drink. He further claimed that upon consuming part of the bottle, he swallowed mold-containing liquid, leading to the development of severe gastrointestinal problems. Pokka denied that the product was in any way contaminated when it left its possession, and denied that any of plaintiff’s symptoms were caused by alleged exposure to mold.

The court granted the defense’s Motion for Summary Judgment, determining as a matter of law that plaintiff’s complaints could not have been caused by ingestion of the tea product. Central to the court’s findings were the plaintiff’s own medical records, including a laboratory assessment of a sample of the tea, which was found to include no contaminants.

Insufficient Contact with California Releases Used Truck Seller from Liability

Richard C. Moreno and Gina E. Och successfully moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction in a products liability case involving a seller of used trucks in Minnesota. Plaintiff had sued the truck dealer for alleged defects in the framing of three used trucks purchased by plaintiff. The defense moved to dismiss the complaint based on the contention that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. Not only did Plaintiff purchase the trucks from a Minnesota company, but they were previously altered in Minnesota by another Minnesota company and the plaintiff came to Minnesota to pick up the trucks.

The defense argued that there were insufficient contacts between the defendant and California. Plaintiff argued that because defendant advertised nationally the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over this Minnesota company. The court granted the motion to quash in favor of the defense and dismissed the defendant from the action.

CPA Defeats Racketeering & Corrupt Charges

George V. Genzmer, III, Gina E. Och and Pascal Gagnon-Morris successfully obtained a summary judgment in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO) federal case. Defendant was the CPA for several start-up companies that were preparing to go public. The related reverse mergers and financing of the companies subsequently failed; thus, prompting the plaintiffs to sue defendant, alleging that he was involved in an enterprise engaged in criminal racketeering.

The defense filed for motion for summary judgement and argued that defendant did not operate, manage or participate in any criminal activity or racketeering enterprise. Specifically, it was argued that Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 1172, 122 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1993), applied. In Reves, the United States Supreme Court held that a violation of § 1962(c) of RICO required participation by the accountant defendant in the operation or management of the enterprise. Here, defendant simply provided auditing services to these companies and did not operate or manage any enterprise.

The court granted the motion a summary judgment stating that defendant simply provided auditing services and did not participate or operate any racketeering enterprise.