Case studies and results details

Summary Judgment Granted in Personal Injury Case

/in

In December 2011, Judge Lefkowitz of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants and against the plaintiff. Corine Zygelman represented the defendants and Lisa D. Angelo prepared and argued the motion.

The case arose from an automobile accident between the plaintiff and a clothing company’s employee who was running an errand for work when the accident occurred. The plaintiff sued both the employee, her employer (the clothing company) and its owners for injuries arising from the same accident. In her first lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorney agreed to a settlement with the employee’s automobile insurance company. Although the plaintiff signed a settlement agreement and agreed to release all her claims against the defendants with prejudice, she filed a second lawsuit against the same defendants for the same injuries arising out of the same accident. She claimed that her former attorney agreed to the first settlement without her complete understanding of the terms.

In her written ruling, granting the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the judge found that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff’s second lawsuit and dismissed the case with prejudice. Specifically, the court held that due to the plaintiff’s agreement to dismiss her previously filed cross-complaint against the defendants, with prejudice, the plaintiff was barred from relitigating the same resolved issues.

Summary Judgment Granted in Insurance and Marine Law Matter

/in

The Orange County Superior Court granted summary judgment in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith matter argued by Carolyn A. Mathews.

In 2007, the plaintiff purchased a 1958 classic Chris Craft wood hulled boat. In 2007 and 2008, he invested in repairs of the boat’s bottom planks, interior and engine. In November of 2009, the boat sank while berthed in Newport Beach. The defendant insurance company hired a surveyor to perform an inspection and float test. The surveyor found water coming in through deteriorated planking at the boat’s transom. The insurance company denied the claim on the basis that gradual deterioration caused the boat to sink.

At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he sailed the boat two days prior to the sinking. He said he sailed around the harbor and, other than having the boat’s battery jumped, had no problems or impact. Plaintiff maintained the sinking was accidental.

In opposition to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the plaintiff claimed, for the first time, that two days prior to the sinking he took the boat out of the harbor beyond the break water, and a wave from a large ship caused his boat to rise up and crash down, impacting hard on the water.

Summary judgment was granted to the defense as the plaintiff violated the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei by not immediately coming forward with information about traveling out of the harbor and the impact from the wave to his insurer.

Wrongful Death Case Resolved for Waiver of Costs

/in

Tim M. Agajanian and German A. Marcucci resolved a wrongful death case for a waiver of costs.

When the plaintiff’s husband experienced medical problems while at home, the plaintiff thrice unsuccessfully attempted to activate their home alarm system to obtain medical assistance. The plaintiff then called 911 and was instructed by the operator. Emergency response personnel arrived approximately 15 to 20 minutes later. However, by that time, her husband had suffered a heart attack and died.

The plaintiff alleged that a number of security system companies negligently installed her home alarm system such that it contained a short circuit and, further, failed to respond to the alarm activation. Murchison & Cumming represented two of the security system companies alleged to have negligently installed the system.

Mr. Agajanian and Mr. Marcucci were able to show that neither of their clients were servicing or monitoring the alarm at the time of the incident, said responsibilities having been transferred to another alarm monitoring and servicing company approximately one year earlier. That other defendant alarm company had serviced the plaintiff’s alarm system during that time.

The plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case against Murchison’s clients for a waiver of costs and thereafter pursued the matter against the other defendants only.

Summary Judgment Granted in Medical Malpractice Case

/in

The San Bernardino Superior Court granted summary judgment in a suit filed against a hospital and doctors. The case was handled by Michael B. Lawler, Nancy N. Potter and Mary C. Trinh.

An elderly man with many medical conditions was admitted to Rancho Specialty Hospital. Murchison & Cumming’s client was his attending physician. After about two weeks in the hospital, the patient slipped while going to the restroom and suffered a broken hip. About three weeks later, he died of his other conditions. His children sued the hospital and doctors, alleging that better fall precautions should have been in place, and that the broken hip led to his death.

The Murchison attorneys filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on two grounds: that the physician did not breach the applicable standard of care with respect to the orders he gave for fall precautions, and that the cause of death was not the broken hip. In response to the plaintiff’s opposition, the Murchison attorneys dealt with substantial expert testimony with respect to standard of care and causation. The court agreed with Murchison’s position as to the qualification and authoritativeness of the expert testimony, and granted the summary judgment motion in favor of the doctor.

LASC Grants Dismissal with Prejudice in Pro Per Case

/in

The Los Angeles Superior Court granted dismissal with prejudice in a pro per case handled by Lisa D. Angelo.

The case arose from an alleged theft of property from a medical waiting room at a local “free clinic” hospital. The plaintiff alleged the hospital failed to have proper surveillance and working video cameras on the day in question. He sought compensatory and punitive damages for his loss of property.

On March 13, 2012, the court sustained the hospital’s demurrer to the complaint. As part of the court’s order, the plaintiff was provided 20 days leave to file an amended complaint. As the plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading within the time-frame provided by the court, the court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Favorable Defense Verdict in Property Damage Jury Trial

/in

A jury reached a favorable defense verdict in an eight-day trial for alleged real property damage in a case handled by Nanette G. Reed with Katherine A. Winder assisting on law and motion. The plaintiff first asked the jury to award $1,319 million. By closing, the amount was reduced to $965,000, yet the plaintiff only received a $3,500 verdict with $1,500 being allocated to Murchison & Cumming’s client, SK Construction.

The defendants, owners of a lot adjacent to the plaintiff’s property, hired defendant and cross-defendant SK Construction. The plaintiff alleged trespass, conversion and unjust enrichment against the defendants, and the defendants filed a cross-complaint against SK Construction.

The first trespass allegation arose from the temporary placement of a large amount of dirt on the plaintiff’s undeveloped property. The dirt was removed by SK Construction within three days. The plaintiff then contended that the defendants performed illegal excavation on his property in order to increase the adjacent lot’s property value over a period of two years. In addition, the plaintiff alleged driveway encroachment.

The court granted directed verdicts on two of the three claims, allowing only the trespass claim to go to the jury. As SK Construction admitted the initial massive dirt dumping, the jury awarded $1,500 to the plaintiff. The defendant lot owners admitted the driveway encroachment and received a $2,000 penalty. Both defendants will be allowed to seek recoverable costs on all expert fees based on the pre-trial CCP 998 Offer to Compromise.

Arbitrator Issues Favorable Defense Award in Nevada Personal Injury Action

/in

Michael J. Nunez and Bryan J. Ure received a favorable defense award in a Nevada personal injury action.

The plaintiff litigated and sought damages against the defendant, alleging spinal trauma incurred as a result of a collision caused by the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant swerved into the side of his vehicle while executing a lane change. The defendant admitted to changing lanes, but denied seeing the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff only six percent of his medical bills.

Civil Court Grants Motion against Liability Premised on Alford Plea in Nevada Case of First Impression

/in

On an issue of first impression before the Nevada court, Bryan J. Ure successfully argued a motion asserting that conclusive liability cannot be premised on an Alford plea where the underlying facts are not admitted, even though a conviction results.

The criminal court prosecuted the defendant for sexual assault and battery. The defendant had entered an Alford guilty plea, denying all underlying facts of the case and asserting innocence. The plaintiff then filed a civil complaint against the defendant for assault and battery and attempted to establish conclusive liability. Under Nevada law, conclusive civil liability is established if a conviction is entered for a crime that results in bodily harm.

The court granted the defendant’s motion arguing that liability could not be premised on an Alford plea and the plaintiff was ordered to amend the complaint.

Products Liability Case against Manufacturer Dismissed

/in

Bryan J. Ure gained complete dismissal of a refrigeration and freezer unit manufacturer in a subrogation lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff’s insurance company. The insurance company alleged that a unit manufactured by the refrigeration company and installed in the plaintiff’s home contained a defective ice maker, water line and water valve which resulted in flooding and subsequent remediation of the home.

The arbitration brief was submitted and, based on its contents, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit in exchange for an agreement that the defendant would not seek costs against them.

Defense Verdict in Nevada Personal Injury Arbitration

/in

Michael J. Nunez and Bradley T. Wibicki won a defense verdict for a Las Vegas bar in a binding arbitration in a personal injury case.

The plaintiff was dancing on top of a speaker at her work place while she was off-duty, when she fell from it. The plaintiff contended that she decided to dance on the speaker because her employer had recently encouraged all of the female servers to do so in an attempt to promote business. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries to her foot. She filed suit against the bar, its owner and its manager for damages, alleging that the defendants negligently failed to protect her from an unsafe condition, and that both the owner and manager negligently operated the business.

The defense argued that no duty of care was breached because the plaintiff was never instructed to dance on a speaker, and there was no evidence that the owner and manager were negligent in their operation of the bar or in their dealings with the plaintiff. Rather, they contended that the plaintiff, who was enjoying herself and drinking independently, decided to dance on the speaker and should be held personally responsible for any injuries she sustained as a result of her fall.