Case studies and results details

Defense Verdict in Pre-School Accident Case

/in

A Los Angeles jury returned a verdict in favor of Pacific Coast Montessori school, represented by Murchison & Cumming attorney Nanette G. Reed.

In the case, Angelea Fredrick, a 3 ½ year old student at Pacific Coast Montessori, broke her leg during an earthquake as the students were being ushered to safety. The plaintiff alleged that she was hit by another student as he was sliding down or jumping off a slide. No adult witnessed the actual contact. The plaintiff contended the school failed to properly supervise the students (California Code of regulations Title 22, Section 101229) and as a result she sustained a nondisplaced fracture to her right leg. There was a second claim that the school personnel delayed in calling emergency services to wait for the parents’ arrival and therefore failed to provide medical attention to a student (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 101226).

The jury found that school staff properly supervised the plaintiff under the circumstances and there was no negligence on the part of the school or any employees that resulted in plaintiff’s accident and injury. The jury found against the Department of Social Services interpretation of Title 22 code section that visual observation requires 100% total eye contact/observation with each child at all times. The jury further found that school personnel did not unreasonably delay in seeking medical attention.

Defense Verdict in High Profile Case

/in

A jury returned a defense verdict in a case where the plaintiff alleged the defendant negligently rendered assistance. The defense was represented by Murchison & Cumming attorneys Russell S. Wollman and Nanette G. Reed.

This case arises from an accident that occurred in 2012. The incident occurred at a condominium complex which is sometimes referred to as the “High Rise to the Stars” as many celebrities currently live there and there have been many celebrities who have resided at in the past. One of the plaintiffs resided at the condominiums and her daughter, the additional plaintiff, was her guest. In 2012 the daughter allegedly fainted and hit her head after working out.

A relative spoke to the daughter via telephone while she was in the locker room. The relative was concerned and summoned a security guard who came and checked on her condition. He offered to call 911 on two occasions. She refused and told him she wanted to go to her mother’s unit. When she started to go to her mother’s unit the security guard decided to escort her to the unit. When they arrived at the unit the guard turned his back to her and she fell for some unknown reason. She suffered facial fractures which required surgery and alleged chronic pain as a result of this incident.

The daughter brought a lawsuit for her personal injuries and economic damages and the mother brought a lawsuit for payment of a portion of her daughter’s medical bills. Plaintiff alleged the condominium’s security guard negligently rendered care which caused the injury. The condominium alleged that the security guard acted reasonably and within the standard of care for a security guard.

Plaintiff’s last demand before trial was $2,000,000. Defense’s last offer was $100,000 (by way of 998).

The jury returned an 11-1 verdict in favor of the Homeowner’s Association in less than 25 minutes.

Favorable Result in Breach of Contract Case

/in

A result in favor of Murchison & Cumming’s client in a breach of contract case regarding excessive royalties, Plover Financial Services, LLC v. ITS Financial, LLC, et al. The case was handled by Mhare O. Mouradian and Tim M. Agajanian, who is no longer at the firm. The court found in favor of ITS on its cross-complaint for breach of contract only against Plover, who will pay ITS the net sum of $867,684.

Defense Verdict in Brain Injury Case – Plaintiff demanded $19 million

/in

A San Bernardino jury returned a verdict in favor of a truck driver training school, represented by Murchison & Cumming attorneys Scott L. Hengesbach and Claudia Borsutzki.

In the case, Richard Boyes v. Roadmaster Drivers School of Fontana, Inc., Mr. Boyes fell when exiting the cab of a school-owned tractor-trailer and hit his head. He claimed that the school did not provide sufficient water to stay hydrated or shade in extreme heat on the school’s skill training pad and neglected to call the paramedics after his fall. He alleged to have suffered a severe brain injury.

The defendant denied its negligence. It contended that it provided enough water and shade at the school and acted reasonably when it did not obtain medical attention given the absence of outward evidence of an injury and the plaintiff’s repeated statement that he did not want the defendant to call for medical attention. The defendant was able to present enough evidence to raise sufficient doubt in the mind of the jury as to the validity of plaintiff’s alleged damages. The jury concluded that although the defendant should have obtained prompt medical attention for the plaintiff, the failure to do so was not a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

After 14 days of trial, the jury returned a 12-0 verdict for the defense.

Demurrer Sustained in a Contract Action Seeking Punitive Damages

/in

On January 9, 2015, Judge Richard Fruin of Department 15 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiffs amended complaint, without leave to amend, in a breach of contract action seeking punitive damages handled by Joseph Kang.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action against the defendant for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, restitution, dissolution of the LLC, conversion, accounting, and punitive damages related to an internet start-up dispute. After the first round of demurrers, the plaintiff alleged only causes of action for conversion and accounting seeking punitive damages against defendant in the amended complaint. In the second round of demurrers, Judge Fruin agreed that the plaintiff failed to claim conspiracy, failed to claim a specific identifiable fund as to this defendant, and failed to show “despicable conduct” on the part of this defendant.

Defense Verdict in Defamation Case Claiming Emotional Distress Seeking Punitive Damages

/in

A Santa Monica jury returned a defense verdict in a defamation case handled by Joseph Kang for a prominent Southern California Pastor.

In the case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant made slanderous statements about the plaintiff having an affair and manipulated the plaintiff’s wife to file for divorce. The defendant denied making any such statements and denied any involvement in the plaintiff’s wife filing for divorce. The plaintiff claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking punitive damages.

The jury returned a 12-0 verdict for the defense, deliberating less than 10 minutes.

Superior Court finds in Favor of Defense in ADA Discrimination Case

/in

The Pomona Superior Court found in favor of Murchison & Cumming’s client, a property owner, in an ADA Discrimination case. Robert H. Panman and Adrian Barrio represented the defendant.

In the case Richard Murillo v. J&J Baldwin Park, LLC, Mr. Murillo is a disabled individual that took his motorized wheelchair to a property in Baldwin Park to visit a bank. The plaintiff claimed that the property violated the law by discriminating against the disabled and sought relief under the American’s with Disability Act, and damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction.

Defendant disputed the claim after making a settlement offer via CCP 998, and elected to take the case to trial in Pomona. Defendant contended that there was not only evidence which established the claims were not actionable, but there was evidence which potentially called into question the credibility of the claims.

As a result, the court found in favor of the defendant.

Summary Judgment Granted in Case in Transportation Case

/in

Summary Judgment Granted in Transportation Case

March 20, 2014

EZ Mailing Services, Inc. et. al. vs. Oracle Transportation Solutions., et. al.

Court Case No.: 2:12-CV-09313 CBM (JEMx)

Federal case re: Fraud, Negligence, Breach of Contract [written and oral] involving Transportation broker.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Grants Summary Judgment in an Employment Dispute.

/in ,

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, granted summary judgment in an employment dispute argued by Ellen M. Tipping and Katelyn M. Knight.

In 2002, Plaintiff was employed by the Children Learning Centers, which operates group homes for troubled youths. Plaintiff worked the overnight shift, which is an “awake” position, meaning that employees must be awake and alert at all times. Overnight shift employees were required to perform bed checks at 15 minute intervals. In February 2011, plaintiff suffered a heart attack and took a week off work. When he returned, he told his manager he could not lift heavy objects. At the beginning of August 2011, plaintiff had surgery to implant a defibrillator. He did not take any time off, but he informed his supervisor that his arm would be in a sling and he would be unable to lift anything heavy for a month after the surgery. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff’s supervisor made a visit to the house where he worked, and from outside the house he observed Plaintiff lying down in the darkened living room. Plaintiff denied he was sleeping and claimed he was meditating, but Plaintiff’s supervisor did not find his explanation credible and Plaintiff was terminated for sleeping on the job.

Plaintiff claimed that Defendant’s stated reason for termination was his race, age, disability and claimed that it was in retaliation for making a worker’s compensation claim. Plaintiff contended he was disabled after he suffered his heart attack, and was knowingly assigned additional duties because he was disabled. He claimed that he and other older employees were terminated and replaced with younger persons and contended that the Defendant’s owner expressed a preference for African American employees.

The Murchison attorneys filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff did not have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that Plaintiff did not state a prima facie case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), because his replacement was not substantially younger, that he did not prove that Defendant’s non-discriminatory reason for the termination was pretextual, and that he did not state a claim for retaliation because the workers’ compensation claim was filed after the termination and the exclusive remedy was under Labor Code sec. 123a.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Grants Summary Judgment in an Employment Dispute.

/in

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, granted summary judgment in an employment dispute argued by Ellen M. Tipping and Katelyn M. Knight.

In 2002, Plaintiff was employed by the Children Learning Centers, which operates group homes for troubled youths. Plaintiff worked the overnight shift, which is an “awake” position, meaning that employees must be awake and alert at all times. Overnight shift employees were required to perform bed checks at 15 minute intervals. In February 2011, plaintiff suffered a heart attack and took a week off work. When he returned, he told his manager he could not lift heavy objects. At the beginning of August 2011, plaintiff had surgery to implant a defibrillator. He did not take any time off, but he informed his supervisor that his arm would be in a sling and he would be unable to lift anything heavy for a month after the surgery. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff’s supervisor made a visit to the house where he worked, and from outside the house he observed Plaintiff lying down in the darkened living room. Plaintiff denied he was sleeping and claimed he was meditating, but Plaintiff’s supervisor did not find his explanation credible and Plaintiff was terminated for sleeping on the job.

Plaintiff claimed that Defendant’s stated reason for termination was his race, age, disability and claimed that it was in retaliation for making a worker’s compensation claim. Plaintiff contended he was disabled after he suffered his heart attack, and was knowingly assigned additional duties because he was disabled. He claimed that he and other older employees were terminated and replaced with younger persons and contended that the Defendant’s owner expressed a preference for African American employees.

The Murchison attorneys filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff did not have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that Plaintiff did not state a prima facie case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), because his replacement was not substantially younger, that he did not prove that Defendant’s non-discriminatory reason for the termination was pretextual, and that he did not state a claim for retaliation because the workers’ compensation claim was filed after the termination and the exclusive remedy was under Labor Code sec. 123a.