Tag Archive for: gina-och

Kasey C. Townsend and Gina E. Och Named Partners Of Murchison & Cumming, LLP

/in ,

Los Angeles, CA – January 5, 2004 – Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Kasey C. Townsend and Gina E. Och have been named Partners of the firm.

Kasey Covert is the Partner in Charge of Murchison & Cumming’s Northern California office. She practiced seven years in the firm’s San Diego office handling complex litigation, before moving north to manage the firm’s first office in Northern California. Ms. Covert’s practice includes construction defect, health law and general liability matters for the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay areas. She is a graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law and is a member of the Association of Northern California Defense Counsel.

Gina Och is a partner in Murchison & Cumming’s Los Angeles office and member of the firm’s Law & Appellate Practice Group. For the past seven years at Murchison & Cumming she has focused her practice on product liability, business litigation, public utilities and international law. Prior to joining Murchison & Cumming, Ms. Och worked as a Research Attorney for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Ms. Och has prepared briefs and argued numerous cases at the appellate level. In addition, each year she is a co-presenter for the firm’s Year in Review seminar with senior partner Edmund G. Farrell, III. Ms. Och is a graduate of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, where she was Managing Editor of the Chicano-Latino Law Review.

 

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.

Climbing the Partnership Ladder

/in ,

Guy R. Gruppie has been elevated to Senior Partner. Mr. Gruppie joined the firm as an associate in 1991. He was made an Associate Partner in 1998 and a Junior Partner in 2000. Mr. Gruppie specializes in the defense of product liability, catastrophic injury and business litigation matters and has tried numerous cases to verdict. Mr. Gruppie is a member of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group and served as Chair of the Firm’s Hiring Committee since 1997. He is a member of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, the Defense Research Institute, the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel and has served as a volunteer mediator for the Los Angeles Superior Court. Mr. Gruppie is resident in the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Gina E. Och, a member of the firm’s Law & Appellate Practice Group, has been named a Partner. For the past seven years at M&C, Ms. Och has focused her practice on product liability, business litigation, public utilities and international law. Prior to joining M&C, Ms. Och worked as a Research Attorney for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Ms. Och has prepared briefs and argued numerous cases at the appellate level. In addition, each year she is a co-presenter for the firm’s Year in Review seminar with senior partner Edmund G. Farrell, III. Ms. Och is resident in the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Kasey A. Covert has been named the Partner in Charge of Murchison & Cumming’s Northern California office. She practiced seven years in the firm’s San Diego office handling complex litigation, before moving north to manage the firm’s first office in Northern California. Ms. Covert’s practice includes construction defect, health law and general liability matters for the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay areas. She is a graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law and is a member of the Association of Northern California Defense Counsel.

Insufficient Contact with California Releases Used Truck Seller from Liability

/in

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

/in

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.

Dental Supplies Company Dismissed from Product Liability Suit

/in

Guy R. Gruppie, Gina E. Och and Paul R. Flaherty recently obtained an early dismissal in a multi-party toxic tort case where a former dental patient alleged that exposure to mercury contained in amalgam fillings caused him to suffer various illnesses and permanent personal injury.

Murchison & Cumming represented Den-Mat Corp., which along with approximately 50 other defendants, was alleged to have manufactured and/or distributed the allegedly defective product.

Pursuant to the terms of pleadings and discovery orders made by the Complex Case division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Den-Mat was able to obtain an early partial dismissal of certain causes of action set forth in the multi-count complaint, and then establish that it could not have played a role in manufacture or distribution of the mercury-containing product.

Only one deposition had taken place by the time plaintiff agreed to dismiss Den-Mat in lieu of a motion for summary judgment.

Author Defeats Allegations of Defamation, Invasion of Privacy & Commercial Misappropriation

/in

Michael B. Lawler, Gina E. Och, and Michael J. Nunez successfully defended a defamation, invasion of privacy and commercial misappropriation case where the plaintiff, a public figure, alleged that defendant had defamed her when he made reference to her in a chapter of a book about stalking.

The defense filed an anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which allows the dismissal of a complaint intended to chill free speech or a party’s right to petition the court. Typically, the speech or petition right at issue concerns a matter of public interest or concern. In this case, the speech at issue concerned stalking, law enforcement techniques and the criminal justice system.

The court granted the defense’s anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike finding: (1) defendant met his burden of demonstrating that plaintiff’s complaint fell within the ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16; and (2) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on her claims against defendant because she is a public figure and she failed to show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, the court found that some statements made in the book were privileged, certain statements were statements of truthful facts and other statements were statements of opinion. The court granted dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant.

President of Dietary Supplement Maker Dismissed from Products Liability Case

/in

Scott L. Hengesbach, Jane O. Matsuda, Gina E. Och and Tina D. Varjian recently obtained a dismissal in a products liability case. Plaintiff sued defendant, the president and sole shareholder of a maker of dietary supplements, for injuries she allegedly sustained by taking one of the products manufactured by defendant’s company.

The defense moved to dismiss the complaint against defendant via a motion to quash summons based on the contention that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Specifically, the defense argued that defendant, a resident of Missouri, did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of California. The plaintiff argued that California had personal jurisdiction over defendant because he was allegedly a designer and promoter of the dietary supplement, as well as President and sole shareholder of the company.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the defendant. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal. On appeal, the order of dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court found that the trial court did not err in finding that the State of California could not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant because, despite his close connection with the company, he did not purposely avail himself of the benefits of California or intentionally cause an effect in California.

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.

Westland Industries NOT Responsible for Hiring Erratic Security Guard

/in

A convenience store clerk at A&D Mini Mart sued Westland Industries, Inc., represented by Robert Clayton, Gina E. Och and Holly Boyer, after the store’s security guard allegedly assaulted him by pointing a gun at his chest. The store clerk alleged that Westland negligently hired and retained a “dangerous” security guard with “violent propensities” and a “bad temper”. The clerk also claimed that he had suffered sever mental anguish because of the incident and had to seek medical treatment as a result. In addition to his mental distress, plaintiff also claimed that he was unable to work and suffered loss of earnings.

Contrary to plaintiff’s allegations, R.Z.P. Security Patrol employed the security guard, not Westland Industries, Inc. Westland argued that it could not be liable for the negligent hiring and retention of the security guard because the security guard was never its employee; Westland did not own R.Z.P. Security Patrol; and Westland did not provide security services for A&D Mini Mart. Westland simply owned the building where A&D’s Corporate Offices were located. Also, the facts clearly illustrated that Westland did not own or control the premises; thus, it argued that it could not be liable for the intentional acts of third parties.

The court concluded that Westland’s evidence was sufficient to shift the burden of proof as to the allegations, including employment and ownership issues, ruling in favor of Westland.

No Liability for Residential Care Facility for Insured Caused by Resident

/in

In this suit venued in Orange County, a mother and daughter alleged that, on February 21, 2001, plaintiff Melanie Martinez, a 2-month old child, sustained injuries when Gregory Berthel a 21-year old developmentally disabled man, bit her while they were shopping at a Target Store in Costa Mesa.

Gregory Berthel was a resident of Pierce Adult Residential Care Home, a 24-hour residential care facility, which provides board, care and supervision for adults with developmental disabilities at its facility.

Plaintiffs sued Nelludy, the owner and operator of Pierce, for negligent supervision, premises liability and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs also sued Gregory Berthel, Robert J. Berthel, Target (they settled) and Orange County Regional Center.

The Lanterman Development Disabilities Services Act provides that adults with development disabilities are granted certain rights and are permitted to make their own decisions as well as live a life within a community that approximates the pattern of everyday living.

On Motion for Summary Judgment, Gina E. Och argued that Nelludy did not owe plaintiffs a duty to supervise Gregory Berthel while at Target and under the supervision of his father. Moreover, it was argued that Gregory was an unconserved adult who was responsible for his actions on February 21, 2001. In other words, in addition to their being no duty, Nelludy did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries. On February 22, 2002, Judge Andrew B. Banks granted Nelludy Motion for Summary Judgment finding no triable issues of material fact on the matters raised by motion, i.e no duty and no causation.