ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEFENSE COUNSEL

Lisa Collinson, Esq. Collinson Daehnke Inlow & Greco Molina, Januario v Pico Rivera Defendant hired its gardener, who was not licensed, to trim trees. Defendant's gardener, in turn, hired Plaintiff, an unlicensed tree trimmer. While Plaintiff was trimming a palm tree he inadvertently cut the ropes holding him up and he fell 20 feet and broke both legs. Plaintiff never made a workers' compensation claim, and instead accumulated more than $400k in medical specials in addition to a large lost earnings claim. Because both the Plaintiff and the gardener who hired him were not licensed, Defendant became his de facto employer. In order to remove the matter from the civil system, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the matter was barred by the worker's compensation exclusivity doctrine. Plaintiff claimed that because Defendant asserted an affirmative defense that Plaintiff was not an employee and because Defendant never presented Plaintiff with a workers' compensation form, Defendant was estopped from now claiming the matter is barred. The Court disagreed finding that a Defendant may assert all available affirmative defenses, and because Plaintiff was Defendant's de facto employee, the Court found against Plaintiff finding that the case was barred by the worker's compensations exclusivity doctrine. Defendant sought costs and will have the ability to assert a lien on any future worker's compensation settlement. Additional Comments/Information: During the first oral argument, the tentative was to grant. Plaintiff's counsel argued for a three week extension to conduct more discovery to determine if the workers' compensation claim was being accepted. Defense argued that acceptance of the claim was not the criteria as to whether it was barred. The Court granted the three week extension. No additional information was learned during the three week extension and the Court granted the motion. Keep The Great Defense Results Coming! https://bit.ly/3UOVwhk

Linda Miller Savitt, Esq. Jonathan S. Rosenberg, Esq. Philip L. Reznik, Esq. Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt, LLP Majovski v. City of Los Angeles Summary judgement granted in favor of the City of Los Angeles in a FEHA gender discrimination/Equal Pay Act/whistleblower lawsuit. Plaintiff was hired into the City Attorney’s Office as a Deputy City Attorney I (“DCA I”), the first of four DCA pay classifications, and assigned to the Workers Compensation Division. In 2016, she was selected for a position in the Employment Litigation Division (“ELD”). She claimed the Civil Litigation Branch Chief promised to promote her up two pay classifications to DCA III but did not do so, while other attorneys (including some males) were hired into ELD at a higher salary, and that she was denied on-site parking. After complaining about her pay, she was promoted to DCA II. Unsatisfied, she transferred out of ELD. She claimed her subsequent non-selection for promotion was in retaliation for her prior complaints, as was the City Attorney’s failure to seek an exception to a Citywide, COVID-related hiring and promotion freeze in 2020-202 in order to promote her.The Court agreed with the City that: 1) The City set Plaintiff’s pay according to her years of relevant experience, not her gender; 2) Plaintiff failed to identify any male DCA with less relevant experience who received higher pay; 3)There was no evidence that she was denied parking privileges because she is female; 4) She could not show she was entitled to promotion based on her experience; and 5) She could not show that the City’s compensation of attorneys was applied in a discriminatory manner to females. Comments/Additional Information: Plaintiff later abandoned her appeal of the ruling. Keep The Great Defense Results Coming! https://bit.ly/3UOVwhk

Thursday, August 29, 2024 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM | Members Only Register Here! https://bit.ly/4chbxD5 A new focus by Plaintiffs in automotive product liability and lemon law cases are claims based on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), including features such as LKA (lane keeping assist), LDW (lane departure warning), AEB (automatic emergency braking) and the like. This webinar will discuss the technology behind ADAS and strategies for defending against these claims.

Robert M. Scherk, Esq. Lisa M. Allen, Esq. Murchison & Cumming Case is Confidential Defendants brought Motion for Summary Judgment in action alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with defendants' representation of Plaintiffs in underlying Probate case. Plaintiffs claimed that a decedent who they had helped take care of in his final years had made various promises to them about leaving them property, paying certain expenses, and making a will that would benefit Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that Creditors' Claims should have been filed on their behalves, but that defendants failed to timely do so. Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs' "evidence" in support of their claims kept changing, and was insufficient to proceed with the Creditors' Claims in the Probate action, and advised Plaintiffs they would not do so and would be closing their file. Further, Plaintiffs had retained different counsel to pursue a similar civil action under the Labor Code for the time they had spent assisting the decedent before his death. Additionally, Plaintiffs' alleged damages, if any, took place well before Plaintiffs fled this suit, and that this action was barred by the one year statute of limitations under CCP section 340.6.Defendants further argued, successfully, that Plaintiffs could not establish causation, and had affirmatively responded to Requests for Admissions that they had no evidence to support any different result, i.e., the recovery of any money, in the Probate action had the Creditors' Claims been filed on their behalves. The summary judgment was made, and granted, on both grounds: (1) Statute of limitations per CCP section 340.6; and (2) lack of causation necessary to prove any of Plaintiffs' claims. Keep The Great Defense Results Coming! https://bit.ly/3UOVwhk #DefenseWins

https://lnkd.in/gi8WVbEz Keep The Great Defense Results Coming! https://bit.ly/3UOVwhk #DefenseWins

https://lnkd.in/ghSF9Tfj Keep The Great Defense Results Coming! https://bit.ly/3UOVwhk #DefenseWins

Happy Independence Day! In observance of Independence Day our offices will be closed Thursday, July 4th and Friday, July 5th, 2024. We will reopen Monday, July 8th #IndependenceDay #4thOfJuly -

Jeffrey Behar, Esq.  Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar Strattan v. Cedar Corporation dba McDonald's Former ASCDC President Behar wins again. Last year his electrocution wrongful death defense verdict was recognized by the Los Angeles Daily Journal as one of the Top Verdicts of the Year in the annual publication. Last week, Jeff Behar and law partner, Tina Mangarpan were in trial in Norwalk for 2 weeks ending on May 22, 2024. Slip and fall liability case against McDonald’s. Elderly man, an engineer and lawyer, fell on a freshly mopped wet floor and dislocated his shoulder with torn rotator cuff and torn knee ligaments. Also claimed head trauma. Plaintiff claimed that McDonald’s franchise employees were negligent for violating the McDonald’s Safe Practices Manual with respect to the placement (or lack thereof) of the safety warning cones while the floor was being mopped. The manual contains a pictorial instruction that the safety cones are to be placed in a 10’ perimeter and that the mopping should be done in a figure 8 pattern. Neither of these guidelines were followed. However, the biggest problem was the accident video itself which played to the jury showed that there was no safety cone at all in the specific location of the incident. Defense argued that the cones had been placed in a “line of sight” fashion to give the customers a visual warning that the floors were being mopped. Plaintiff was physically impaired with an arthritic knee requiring him to walk with a cane. Defense claimed that he was not paying attention to even notice any of the cones prior to the accident. As a result of the accident the plaintiff lost his driver’s license, lost his law license, and was admitted to a full-time assisted living facility. A life changer. In closing argument, the plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award between $5.5 to $7.5 million. In terms of damages the jury verdict was as follows: Past Economic Losses = $113,950.Future Economic Losses = $259,636 *Past non-economic Losses (pain and suffering) = $100,000Future non-economic losses (pain and suffering) = $178,500Total = $652,086The jury also found that the plaintiff was 25% contributorily negligent. Calculation is $652,086 reduced by 25% = $489,064. *After future loss of earnings were reduced to present cash value, the verdict/judgment was $450,657.Defense had served a CCP 998 Statutory Offer to Compromise in the sum of $450,001. 

Kathleen Fellows, Esq. LightGabler LLP Bernal v. Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld This case was a jury trial in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in which an employee claimed disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related causes of action against her former employer, a law firm. The employee was chronically on and off disability for various reasons. There were serious issues regarding plaintiff’s ability to work, go to school, or return to work at any point in the future. After two days of deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. #DefenseWins Keep The Great Defense Results Coming! https://bit.ly/3UOVwhk

Women's Tea, Brunch, & Mimosas Friday, June 28, 2024 at 11:30 a.m. Register Here! https://bit.ly/3XoZb8j Please join us for an inspiring panel discussion on topics relevant to women lawyers followed by Q & A with our panelists and networking reception. Thank You To Our Sponsors https://lnkd.in/eeCWCM8 https://litiligroup.com/ https://www.macropro.com/