Tag Archive for: corine-zygelman

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 Product Liability Matter

/in

Gina E. Och and Corine Zygelman obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client, a distributor of motion picture cameras, digital intermediate systems, and lighting equipment. The plaintiff sued his employer, the defendant, for negligence and products liability, claiming to have sustained injury while moving a scanner, manufactured by a parent company of the defendant, down a city street for a customer. The defendant moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy and the plaintiff failed to show that he fell within the exception regarding a dual employer based on the employer’s role as the product manufacturer. The court further found that plaintiff failed to show (1) he was a consumer or end user of the product and (2) the defendant company was the manufacturer of the product.

Cement Company Victorious in Major Personal Injury Action

/in

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation was successfully defended in a major personal injury action filed on behalf of a truck driver who was seriously injured in a tractor trailer accident by Guy R. Gruppie, Corine Zygelman and Adrian J. Barrio.

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 which 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 substantial medical bills.

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, it was successfully argued by the moving party 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 were substantial factors in the occurrence of the accident. At pending trial against other defendants, plaintiffs are expected to seek a total award exceeding seven figures.

Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion, Exonerating Murchison & Cumming Client in Construction Area Accident Lawsuit

/in

M&C attorneys Guy R. Gruppie, Corine Zygelman and Anastasia K. Mazzella recently won summary judgment for defendant R. J. Noble Company in a personal injury action that arose out of an accident that occurred when plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a construction sign while attempting to apparently get to her mailbox.

Judge Robert J. Moss of the Orange County Superior Court ruled as a matter of the law, the sign did not constitute a dangerous condition but even if it did, it was “open and obvious” to Mary Harringer, who suffered multiple injuries including a concussion in the May 5, 2005 incident.

Defendant’s moving papers called into question that plaintiff was in fact trying to get to the mailbox at her address and argued that whether or not Ms. Harringer’s attention was focused on oncoming traffic–rather than the sign–was irrelevant to the assessment of whether it was either a dangerous condition or open and obvious one.

Key evidence elicited in discovery included an admonition from the plaintiff, a retired medical technician, that she was first aware of the sign as much as three months before the accident allegedly occurred.

At the time of the accident, R. J. Noble, one of Orange County’s most respected contractors, was performing road rehabilitation work pursuant to a contract with the City of Costa Mesa.

Defendant will seek recovery of a substantial cost bill.

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.

Luxury Hotel Chain not Liable in Jewelry Theft Case – Summary Judgment Granted

/in

Steven L. Smilay, Corine Zygelman and Gina E. Och successfully defended a case involving a luxury hotel chains’s liability in federal court. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant for failing to provide adequate security for valuables.

Plaintiffs alleged that, while they were registered guests at the defendant’s hotel, their jewelry valued by plaintiffs to be between $100,000 and $300,000, was allegedly taken by an unidentified person from a locker at the hotel spa. As a consequence, the plaintiffs further alleged that the hotel failed to provide either security or “adequate advice” to its guests and failed to “provide for a secure place to be theft-free while plaintiffs were present on the property.”

The defense filed a motion for summary judgment based on the California innkeeper statutes codified at California Civil Code Sections 1859 and 1860, whereby a hotelkeeper’s liability is barred if certain conditions are met. In particular, Section1860 frees a hotelkeeper from all liability if it keeps a fireproof safe, notifies guests of the safe, and the guest chooses not to deposit his or her property in the safe for safekeeping. In this case, the plaintiffs were advised of the firerproof safe on the hotel’s premises, but chose instead to keep the jewelry in a little white box, which was kept in a purse. Moreover, despite the claimed value of the jewelry, the plaintiffs stored the purse in a locker at the spa while plaintiffs were using the hotel spa. Consequently, based on the California Innkeeper statutes, plaintiffs were barred from asserting any liability against the hotel arising from the theft of the jewelry from the locker.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defense.

Corine Zygelman and Jefferson Smith Named Partners of Murchison & Cumming

/in ,

Los Angeles, CA – January 6, 2003 – Murchison & Cumming is pleased to announce that Corine Zygelman, of the firm’s Los Angeles office, and Jefferson S. Smith, of the firm’s San Diego office, have become Associate Partners of the firm.

Corine Zygelman joined the firm 14 years ago as a paralegal in the Los Angeles office. While working full time, she enrolled at the University of LaVerne College of Law, attending evening classes, where she was the recipient of American Jurisprudence Award in Federal Court, Products Liability, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Family Law. Upon graduation in 1995, she became an attorney with the firm. Ms. Zygelman focuses her practice in the area of civil litigation with an emphasis on intellectual property, business litigation and general liability. She is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (Inns of Court) and the State Bar of California.

Jefferson S. Smith joined Murchison & Cumming’s San Diego office seven years ago. He focuses his practice in the areas of medical malpractice, product and general liability and commercial litigation. Mr. Smith has arbitrated in excess of 100 cases and tried numerous jury trials. He is a 1991 graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law and a member of the State Bar of California, the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel and the San Diego Defense Lawyers.

 

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP

With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The Firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. For additional information, please visit our website at www.murchisonlaw.com.

What’s in a Name? Defense Judgment in Intellectual Property Dispute Involving Names of Tae Kwon Do Facilities

/in

On September 24, 2002, in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute, Corine Zygelman of Murchison & Cumming’s Los Angeles office received a defense judgment for Jimmy Graesser and his businesses, known as “National TKD.com”.

In 1999, Mr. Graesser owned and operated a tae kwon do training facility in Laguna Niguel, California under the name “National Tae Kwon Do Studio”. In 1996, Plaintiff, Chun Woo Park had opened a tae kwon do training facility, in nearby Aliso Viejo, California using the name “National Tae Kwon Do Academy”.

Both training facilities operated under their respective names until October 2000, when Mr. Park sent Mr. Graesser a cease and desist letter claiming that the name “National Tae Kwon Do Studio” was confusingly similar to the name of his facility, “National Tae Kwon Do Academy”. After some debate, Mr. Graesser agreed to change the name of his business to “National TKD.com” and the change was officially made in 2001. Mr. Park, unsatisfied with Mr. Graesser’s new business name because it still contained the word “National”, proceeded with his lawsuit, seeking an injunction requiring Mr. Graesser to further change the name of his business.

During the bench trial, Mr. Park contended that because he had filed a fictitious business name and continually used it since its filing, he in essence owned the name “National Tae Kwon Do Academy”. He also claimed that the name of his business and that of Mr. Grasser’s, “National TKD.com” were confusingly similar.

After considering all the evidence, the Court ruled that although the initial use of the name “National Tae Kwon Do Studios” was indeed confusingly similar, once the name had been changed to “National TKD.com”, there was no likelihood of confusion. In entering judgment in favor of Mr. Graesser, the court found that the testimony did not provide any evidence that there was confusion and refused to issue the requested injunction.

At trial, Plaintiff had attempted to call a “surprise” witness to testify on the issue of whether the names were confusingly similar. Ms. Zygelman was successful in having this witness precluded from testifying altogether. In addition, counsel for plaintiff attempted to introduce audiotapes, which were “created” within 30 days of trial, to allegedly demonstrate customers calling Mr. Park when they intended to contact Mr. Graesser. Once again, Ms. Zygelman was able to preclude the introduction of the tape and any associated testimony.

Through this victory, Ms. Zygelman preserved Mr. Graesser’s right to call his business “National TKD.com”, thereby avoiding the expenses of phasing in a new name and allowing him to maintain the client base and solid reputation that he had developed.