Daily Journal User Guide

PAGE 2 • MONDAY-FRIDAY

LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL

Printed and distributed daily, this report includes a summary of the day’s key opinions from the California Courts of Appeal, California Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The Daily Appellate Report is included in all print and online subscriptions except the Digital Edition. Daily Appellate Report

DAILY APPELLATE REPORT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2025

Supplement to the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal and The Daily Recorder

 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

 California Courts of Appeal

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE U.S. v. Barry Probable cause existed to search non-residence apartment under the parolee-search condition exception where parolee had a key to the apartment and showed intimate familiarity with it. District: USDC Central District of California Pages: ii & 5074 ii

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE People v. American Surety Co. Because criminal court failed to forfeit bond after defendant’s initial disappearance, it lost jurisdiction and civil court erred in not vacating forfeiture and exonerating bail.

DAILY APPELLATE REPORT

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

District: 2DCA/6 Pages: ii & 5082 Criminal Law and Procedure

Criminal Law and Procedure

Index to cases features one- sentence synopsis of each opinion

HABEAS CORPUS In re Rogowski  Probable cause existed to search non- residence apartment under the parolee- search condition exception where parolee had a key to the apartment and showed intimate familiarity with it. U.S. v. Barry, || 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2101, Oral Argument Feb. 11, 2025, Filed Jun. 17, 2025 District: 4DCA/1 Pages: iii & 5085 In 2018, an anonymous tipster reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that a person named “Ryan” with a red Mustang sold drugs out of an apartment on Emelita Avenue in Van Nuys. The officer assigned to the case found that a “Ryan Beau Patrick Barry” was on post-release community supervision for felony firearm and drug convictions. Barry’s terms of supervision included a warrantless search condition, meaning that his person, property, and residence could be searched without a warrant. Barry had registered a residence with his probation officer that was different from the Emelita Avenue address. The officer found Barry near the Emelita Avenue address, driving a red Mustang, and with a “baggie” of what appeared to be meth. The officer handcuffed Barry and told him he would search his apartment on Emelita Avenue. The officer asked who else lived there, and Barry replied that his girlfriend did. When the officer asked Barry for a key to the apartment, Barry showed him the key to the apartment’s front door. The police recovered drugs and firearms at the apartment. Barry later moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked probable cause to search his non- residence. Affirmed. Generally, warrantless searches are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specific exceptions. One such exception is the search of a parolee that complies with the terms of a valid search condition. For the parolee- search condition exception to apply under California law, law enforcement officers must have probable cause to believe that the parolee is a resident of the house to be searched. Probable cause exists if an officer of reasonable caution would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the parolee lives at a particular residence. Here, the officer reasonably believed that Barry lived at the Emelita residence, given that the anonymous tip tied Barry to the apartment, Barry showed intimate familiarity with the apartment, and Barry even had a key to the apartment. Because probable cause existed, the search was reasonable. Opinion by Patrick J. Bumatay Concurring: J. Clifford Wallace Concurring: Susan P. Graber The full text of this case appears in the Daily Appellate Report on page 5074. — Christie Bahna 5074

 Because criminal court failed to forfeit bond after defendant’s initial disappearance, it lost jurisdiction and civil court erred in not vacating forfeiture and exonerating bail. People v. American Surety Co. , 2DCA/6 || California Courts of Appeal, No. B338852, Case Fully Briefed Jan. 27, 2025, Oral Argument Apr. 9, 2025, Filed Jun. 17, 2025 American Surety Company posted a bond for defendant Marlon Valle-Mejia. At the first hearing, Defendant appeared remotely with his counsel. During that time, the criminal court continued the bail bond, only forfeiting it after Defendant’s third absence. American was notified and requested an extension to bring in Defendant. However, Defendant remained missing and American filed to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail, arguing that the criminal court lost jurisdiction to order the forfeiture when it failed to order so after Defendant’s initial truancy. American made this request twice, with the criminal court denying it both times. After American was served with a summary judgment notice regarding the bond in civil court, American moved to vacate the previous criminal court’s rulings discharge the forfeiture, and exonerate bail. The civil court denied the motion based on issue preclusion. American appealed. Reversed in full. Under Penal Code section 1305, trial courts “shall” forfeit bail when the defendant, “without sufficient excuse,” fails to appear in court “if the defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required.” And, if section 1305 requisites are not followed, criminal courts lose jurisdiction. Where courts lack jurisdiction, issue preclusion is inapplicable. Here, the criminal court, in not forfeiting bail when Defendant first failed to appear without excuse, lost jurisdiction. By losing its jurisdiction, the criminal court’s later decisions forfeiting the bond were void, making issue preclusion a nonissue in this case. Accordingly, the summary judgment against the bond was also void. Opinion by Hernaldo J. Baltodano The full text of this case appears in the Daily Appellate Report on page 5082. — Antoneth Dizon Fong

Governor’s reversal of parole granted to inmate serving indeterminate life sentence was upheld because the inmate’s inconsistent statements regarding his crime demonstrated a material lack of insight.

Attorney- written case briefs

DAILY APPELLATE REPORT

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

OPINION

BUMATAY, Circuit Judge:

Probable cause existed to search non- residence apartment under the parolee- search condition exception where parolee had a key to the apartment and showed intimate familiarity with it.

At issue here is whether police officers had probable cause to believe that Ryan Barry, a probationer who was subject to warrantless search conditions, resided at an apartment they searched. Barry appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in this search. Because the search was consistent with the Fourth Amendment and with our holding in United States v. Grandberry , 730 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm.

Full opinions with concurrences and dissents

Cite as 2025 DJDAR 5074

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee , v. RYAN BEAU PATRICK BARRY, Defendant - Appellant . No. 23-2101 D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00334-MWF-1 United States Court of Appeal Ninth Circuit Filed June 17, 2025

I.

In November 2018, an anonymous tipster called the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) to report that a person named “Ryan” sold drugs out of an apartment at 14436 Emelita Avenue, Apartment B, in Van Nuys, California (“Emelita apartment”). The caller added that “Ryan” drove a red convertible Ford Mustang. The LAPD assigned Officer Giovanni Espinoza to investigate the tip. After searching several databases, Officer Espinoza learned about a “Ryan Beau Patrick Barry” who was on post-release community supervision for felony firearm and drug convictions. Barry’s terms of supervision included a warrantless search condition, meaning that his person, property, and residence could be searched without a warrant. Officer Espinoza found that Barry had registered a different residential address with his probation officer---not the Emelita apartment. He also discovered that Barry possessed no valid driver’s license and that he could not drive a motor vehicle legally at the time. Later, Officer Espinoza decided to surveil the Emelita apartment. When Officer Espinoza arrived, he observed a red convertible Mustang parked close to a walkway that led to the Emelita apartment. He then saw Barry appear in the walkway and approach the Mustang. Barry got into the car and drove to a nearby gas station; Officer Espinoza followed. At the gas station, Barry parked and sat in the driver’s seat for five to ten minutes. Officer Espinoza then approached, identified himself as law enforcement, and directed Barry to get out of the car. When

The DAR is a stand-alone section, published every weekday

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Graber, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bumatay; Concurrence by Judge Wallace; Concurrence by Judge Graber

COUNSEL

Jenna W. Long (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Terrorism and Export Crimes Section; Elizabeth S.P. Douglas, and David R. Friedman, Assistant United States Attorneys; Cameron L. Schroeder, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, National Security Division; E. Martin Estrada, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Alexis Haller (argued), Law Office of Alexis Haller, Aptos, California, for Defendant- Appellant.

Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

PAGE 4 • THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2025

LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL

MCLE Don’t let an adverse party commit to producing ‘relevant’ documents

because lawyers are untrustworthy. It is false because our system does not run on trust. It works because we have a set of procedural rules that apply equally to all parties, and those rules yield trustworthy results (even if we don’t like them) because they are the product of a transpar- ent, objective, and verifiable pro- cess. Trust has place, to be sure, but trust is always moderated with “but verify,” and there’s no way to verify an opaque process. It is not hard to set up a transpar- ent process for securing discovery of only relevant documents. All ques- tions of relevance must be resolved at the document request level, either by agreement of the parties or by court order. The operative question is, “Does this request seek relevant information?” If it does, producing parties only need to worry about whether a particular document is responsive to the request. Docu- ment-by-document determinations of relevance have essentially no place in discovery. The distinction between “relevant requests” and “responsive docu- ments” is key to ensuring the discov- ery process functions transparently. Reserving relevance determinations for the court as a threshold inquiry ensures both parties operate under the same rules. Relevant will mean whatever the court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, determines its means. Once that rule is in place, ex- ecuting the command to locate and produce responsive documents is fine to leave to producing party’s dis- cretion because, unlike determining relevance, locating responsive docu- ments requires making an objective determination. A document is either responsive to a request or it is not. If a party cannot tell whether a doc- ument is responsive, then there is a vagueness problem with the request itself that must be corrected. By putting relevance and respon- siveness in their proper places, the process of producing discovery is

fully transparent because all parties operate under the same rule for what is discoverable. The party receiving discovery can be assured they’re re- ceiving what they deserve, nothing more, and nothing less. That assur- ance simply doesn’t exist when one party takes it upon itself to make a blind determination of what is rele- vant to the case. Although there is little case law addressing this exact issue, there is ample case law addressing the anal- ogous issue of unilaterally redacting documents to scrub them of purport- edly irrelevant information. The gen- eral rule in those cases is that parties must produce responsive documents in their entirety even if those docu- ments contain some information that might ultimately be irrelevant under the discovery rules. See, e.g. , Coe v. Cross-Lines Ret. Ctr., Inc. , 342 F.R.D. 539, 548 (D. Kan. 2022). The logic of the redaction cases applies to rele- vance-qualified responses—courts determine relevancy at the request level, not the document level, and if the request seeks relevant infor- mation, the producing party has no discretion to pick and choose what gets produced on relevancy grounds or for any other reason. Transparent process, trustworthy results, and a lot less anxiety over whether the other side is secretly withholding discovery.

The Daily Journal Corporation is approved by the State Bar of California as a continuing legal education provider. These self-study activities qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit in the amount of one hour.

Read the article Answer questions Submit completed test and payment

This art was created with the assistance of Shutterstock AI tools

By Ian Pike R

tics. Attorney ethical guidelines and the requirement of signing and certi- fying discovery responses establish some guardrails that could curb the worst potential abuses of such liber- ty-taking; but the vast outer bound- aries of what is ethically permissible leave ample room to frustrate an ad- verse party’s discovery goals. Many lawyers will argue our sys- tem is based on trust, and an attor- ney seeking discovery needs to trust opposing counsel to produce all the relevant documents. Some judges will even repeat this reasoning. See, e.g. , UAB “Planner5D” v. Meta Plat- forms, Inc. , 746 F. Supp. 3d 806, 808 (N.D. Cal. 2024). This line of think- ing, however charitable about the scruples of litigators, is false. But not

tle more than giving the requesting party what it deserves. Makes sense, right? Not so fast. This argument begs an important question: Who decides what’s relevant, and how? Should it be a responding party? A requesting party? The court? The wrong answer makes for mischief. A commitment to produce only relevant documents implies the pro- ducing party will decide whether an individual document is or is not rele- vant and therefore subject to produc- tion. The problem is obvious if you stop to think about it for more than a moment. Giving one lawyer unsu- pervised discretion to interpret the scope of another lawyer’s discovery request is an invitation to sharp tac-

lists of annoying discovery games. But it’s a sneaky little trick, partly because it seems innocuous. Includ- ing a qualifier about producing only “relevant” documents in a discovery response rests on the half-truth that a party has no obligation to produce “irrelevant” documents. This has a ring of common sense. After all, the concept of relevance is central to civil discovery because the scope of discovery itself, in both state and federal court, is limited to material relevant to the issues in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. Thus, by op- eration of law, anything that is not relevant is per se not discoverable, and a commitment to produce only relevant documents amounts to lit-

esponses to Requests for Production (RFPs) vary widely between extreme candor and obfuscation.

Ian Pike is a law clerk.

Between those poles are the re- sponses that look something like the following: “Responding Party will produce relevant, responsive docu- ments within its possession, custody or control.” That almost looks like a commitment to produce documents within the scope of the request at is- sue. Hooray! But they say the devil is in the details, and the devilish detail lurking in this particular response is that one, innocuous little word: Rel- evant. This response might not even make the top five on most attorneys’

Articles written by legal professionals

Self-Assessment Test Test prepared by the Daily Journal. Questions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the author(s) of the accompanying article.

MCLE Center

CERTIFICATION The Daily Journal Corp., publisher of the Los An- geles and San Francisco Daily Journals, has been approved by the State Bar of California as a continu- ing legal education provider. This self-study activity qualifies for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit in the amount of one hour of general credit.

MCLE CREDIT Earn one hour of MCLE credit by reading the article and answering the questions that follow. Mail your answers with a check for $36 to the address on the answer form. You will receive the correct answers with explanations and a certification within six weeks. Price subject to change without notice.

Earn MCLE credit without leaving your computer: go to www.dailyjournal.com/ mcle for access to dozens of articles and tests on a range of topics. This MCLE was created with assistance of AI tools.

GENERAL CREDIT

Self-assessment test for MCLE credit

HOW TO RECEIVE ONE HOUR OF MCLE CREDIT Answer the test questions, choosing the best answer. For timely pro- cessing, print or type your name/address/bar number below. Mail this page and a $36 check made payable to Daily Journal to: Daily Journal • P.O. Box 54026 • Los Angeles, CA 90054–0026

in discovery.

1. The inclusion of the word “rele- vant” in a discovery response is usu- ally an honest and harmless choice. True  False  2. A responding party’s decision to withhold a document because they deem it irrelevant is appropriate. True  False  3. A document-by-document deter- mination of relevance is acceptable in the discovery process. True  False  4. The process of determining whether a document is relevant to a case is inherently subjective. True  False  5. Federal and state discovery rules limit the scope of discovery to only relevant materials. True  False  6. Trust in opposing counsel’s commitment to produce relevant documents is the primary safeguard

11. Transparency in the discovery process ensures that both parties have equal access to all relevant doc- uments. True  False  12. The inclusion of irrelevant doc- uments in discovery responses does not necessarily compromise the fair- ness of the process, as long as they are disclosed. True  False  13. A party can provide documents in response to a request, even if some parts of the document may be irrele- vant, as long as they provide the re- sponsive parts True  False  14. A requesting party must ask the court to resolve disputes over what is relevant in discovery. True  False  15. Discovery responses should only include facts that support the requesting party’s argument. True  False 

True  False 

16. In the discovery process, rel- evance is determined by the party making the request. True  False  17. A response that commits to pro- ducing only “relevant” documents is not a clear and transparent way to fulfill a discovery request. True  False  18. Responses to Requests for Pro- duction (RFPs) don’t always clearly specify that only “relevant” docu- ments will be produced. True  False  19. The producing party has the discretion to redact documents that they deem irrelevant, even if the doc- ument is otherwise responsive. True  False  20. The rules governing the pro- duction of relevant documents are designed to create a transparent pro- cess in discovery. True  False 

7. A discovery response that only commits to producing “relevant” documents might actually be less helpful than one that clearly lists the documents to be produced. True  False  8. If a document request seeks relevant information, the producing party has no discretion to withhold documents based on relevance. True  False  9. Ethical guidelines and discovery certifications ensure that lawyers do not abuse their discretion in decid- ing what documents to produce. True  False  10. A party may decide whether a document is responsive to a discov- ery request, but not whether it is rel- evant. True  False 

Name (required)

Date (required)

The Daily Journal Corporation certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California.

Law Firm, Company, Organization

Practice Area

State Bar Number (required)

Don’t let an adverse party commit to producing ‘relevant’ documents 06/19/2025

Title and Date of Test Publication (required)

Address

Phone

email

Please check here if this is a new address 

Online tests also available www.DailyJournal.com/MCLE (see page 4)

MCLE tests online — www.dailyjournal.com/mcle Self-study tests include Alternative Dispute Resolution, Appellate Practice, Bankruptcy, Criminal, Environmental, Intellectual Property, Labor/Employment, Law Practice, Litigation, Probate, Taxation Special Requirement Tests: Detection or Prevention of Substance Abuse or Mental Illness, Elimination of Bias, Legal Ethics Videos for Participatory Credit Read articles and take the tests online or print and mail test with your check

LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL

MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY • PAGE 3

Verdicts & Settlements

Start your Friday with our roundup of newsworthy decisions.

Verdicts & Settlement is included in all print and online subscriptions except the Digital Edition.

This week’s featured neutral – see them all at www.dailyjournal.com/adr_profiles

PAGE 2 • FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2025

DAILY JOURNAL VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS

TOP VERDICTS

Ganatta v. JKC Palm Springs Automotive Inc. Verdict: Defense San Diego County Superior Court Topic: Employment Law Subtopic: Disability Discrimination Detail: Failure to Accommodate Defense – Jeffrey W. Erdmann (Scali Rasmussen PC) Plaintiff, a former sales manager, claimed termination was due to disabil- ity-related discrimination.

Cummins v. National City $10 MILLION (Verdict) San Diego County Superior Court Topic: Employment Law Subtopic: Hostile Work Environment Detail: Gender Discrimination, Retaliation Plaintiff – Jeffrey L. Hogue, Tyler J. Belong (Hogue & Belong)

Top verdicts of the week

Plaintiff, a police officer, alleged pervasive harassment and discrimination by male colleagues and supervisors, leading to a constructive discharge. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

California’s largest searchable database of public notices is at your fingertips.

See page 4 for a full summary

See page 4 for a full summary

CApublicnotices.com is your one-stop resource for California’s legal and public notices, allowing you easy, searchable access to:

Shelton v. Hyundai Motor America Verdict: Defense Los Angeles County Superior Court Topic: Personal Injury Subtopic: Product Liability Detail: Window Auto-Reverse Failure

Phillips v. Milestone Retirement Communities $10 MILLION (Settlement) Ventura County Superior Court Topic: Personal Injury Subtopic: Elder Abuse Detail: Residential Care Facility Negligence

Indexed by subject and verdict amount

Defense – Robert W. Maxwell (Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis); Antho- ny E. Sonnett, Jocelyn A. Julian (Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP) Plaintiff alleged a vehicle window defect caused a hand injury. Jury found Hyundai not liable.

Plaintiff – William M. Berman, Harlan J. Zaback (Berman & Riedel LLP) Plaintiffs alleged staff at a residential care facility failed to assist an elderly woman during a choking incident, resulting in her death. The case settled prior to trial.

• Bulk sales • DBA/Fictitious Business names • Government • Civil • Probate • Public auctions • Trustee/Foreclosure • And more

See page 6 for a full summary

See page 6 for a full summary

Ruterbusch v. Flash Home Inspections, LLC Verdict: Defense San Diego County Superior Court Topic: Personal Injury Subtopic: Premises Liability Detail: Negligent Home Inspection Defense – Thomas R. Kelleher (Walsh, McKean & Furcolo LLP) Plaintiff claimed inspection company failed to warn of unsafe water tem- perature.

Gomez-Garcia v. Gallegos $8.57 MILLION (Verdict) Riverside County Superior Court

DAILY JOURNAL VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS

PAGE 3 • FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2025

Topic: Personal Injury Subtopic: Auto v. Auto Detail: Red Light Plaintiff – Byron (B.J.) Abron (Abron Law, P.C.); Lior M. Behdadnia, Shawn Sasooness (Sasooness Law Group APC) Plaintiff, a school janitor, was struck by a vehicle that ran a red light. He suffered significant spinal injuries and underwent multiple surgeries.

Index to Cases By Amount

Trusted, Compliant, &

Streamlined Legal Notice Publication Platform We provide attorneys with a platform for all public notice advertising needs

Judge Arbitrator Mediator

See page 6 for a full summary

Amount

Plaintiff Attorney

Defendant Attorney

Page

See page 6 for a full summary SPOTLIGHT YOUR WORK

$10,000,000 William Berman/Harlan Zaback

Pappas/Endelicato/Seigler/Petrullo Mark S. Borrell

6

$10,000,000 Jeffrey Hogue/Tyler Belong Cristina Mihlech/Mondana Koshfam/William Pate

Loren G. Freestone

4

Reliable access to public information, fast.

$8,569,756 Byron Abron/Lior Behdadnia/Shawn Sasooness Stephen Pasarow/Adam Mikaelian Eric A. Keen

6

$7,500,000

Kim/ et al.

Geoffrey Yost/Anna Rotrosen/Michael Tubach

Noël Wise

5

Last Week’s Top Verdicts

Submit your results Have a recent verdict, settlement, arbitration result, or other disposition you would like to see featured in the Daily Journal’s Verdicts & Settlements section? Fill out our submission form online at: www.dailyjournal.com/VandS Or you can email us at: verdicts@dailyjournal.com

CAPUBLICNOTICES.COM A service of the Los Angeles and San Franciso Daily Journal

$6,500,000

Tamara Freeze/Preston Lim Kimberly Stein/Jakub Medrala

Wendy Chang

6

Newberry v. Kadenwood, Inc. $10 MILLION (Arbitration Award) Orange County Superior Court Topic: Employment Law Plaintiff – Daren Lipinsky, Taylor DeRosa (Rizio, Lipinsky & Heiting Law); Ronald Hodg- es (Goe, Forsythe & Hodges) Hernandez v. Palomares $4.9 MILLION (Verdict) Los Angeles County Superior Court Topic: Personal Injury Plaintiff – Michael Sanchez, Jennifer Russell, Arielle Farias (Mendez & Sanchez APC) Proof/affidavit of publication filed with the court, county, or state as required Additional document filing services are also available. Rangel v. City of Los Angeles $4.5 MILLION (Verdict) Los Angeles County Superior Court Topic: Employment Law Plaintiff – Eugene Harris (Pat Harris APC); Tamar Arminak (Arminak Law APC) www.LegalAdStore.com Why use Legal Ad Store? Easy 3-step process with reasonable fees Single source for placing notices in newspapers as required by law.

Martinez v. Food 4 Less of California Inc. Summary Judgment: Defense Los Angeles County Superior Court Topic: Personal Injury Defense – Elnoz Faiazi (Stone Dean LLP)

Attorney-written summaries include attorneys, jurist/neutral, facts, contentions, and experts

$5,300,000

Thomas Brandi/Jeffrey Sevey

Jeffrey Vucinich

Stephen L. Gizzi

6

$3,680,000

Jennifer Hashmall

David Aafedt/Trevor Locko

Gassia Apkarian

4

$1,741,484

Harrison Long/Frederick Rispoli

Treashal Parmar/Angelica Samaniego Michael J. Strickroth 6

John Doe v. Roe Hospital Verdict: Defense Orange County Superior Court Topic: Medical Defense – Patrick Goethals (Kelly, Trotter & Franzen) Johnson v. Laktineh Nonsuit: Defense Los Angeles County Superior Court Topic: Personal Injury Defense – Matthew Trostler (Peterson, Poll & Trostler)

$1,250,000

Aiwazian/Ghosh/Razi/Hosseini

Audrey Gardner/Robert Vogel

Bernard C. Barmann Jr. 4

When you secure a favorable verdict, settlement, dismissal, or other final disposition, send it to

$1,000,000

Eber Bayona/Arya Afighom

Patty Thammalaiviroj

Lisa R. Jaskol

6

$825,000

Andrew Kim/Daniel Siegel/Emily Rose Johns Edmund Wang/Renee Rosenblit Susan Y. Illston

4

Last week’s top verdicts

$450,000

Michael Moran/Lisa Flint

Cheryl Kirkpatrick/Fang Li

Nathan Nhan Vu

5

$256,600

Abraham Sandoval/Henry Harmeling Samantha Mahoney/Albert Peacock/Glen Piper Michael B. Harwin 6

$71,698

Pro Per

Frederick Hayes

6

Writ granted

Kinsey/ et al. James Crowder/Colleen Flannery/Emily Hajarizadeh/Daniel Fuchs Robert M. Whalen Jr. 5

Defense

Jessica Sauber/Victor Marshall Robert Maxwell/Anthony Sonnett/Jocelyn Julian Bruce G. Iwasaki 6

www.dailyjournal.com

Defense

Galipo/ et al.

Christopher Wesierski/Abe Salen Sunshine S. Sykes

4

Defense

Alvin Pittman

Jeffrey Erdmann

Carolyn M. Caietti

4

PAGE 6 • FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2025

DAILY JOURNAL VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS

Neutral brings decades of bench experience to process help you see a different perspective, but he’s not your opponent. He’s just shedding light and perspective on things.” your own thought process and your own assessment.” said, “all the good things you like to see in a mediator.” Continued from page 1

Defense

Richard Cowles

Alan Gutman/Louis Shoch

Teresa A. Beaudet

4

VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS www.dailyjournal.com/VandS NO SUBSCRIPTION NECESSARY

Mukasa has remained bedbound on hospice care. RESULT: The case settled for $450,000 (after four days of trial) bringing the global resolution of the case to $2,847,961 (previous Arbitration Award against Park View Estates was $2,397,961). OTHER INFORMATION: An Arbitration Award was obtained from first defendant Fountain Valley Opco, LLC dba Park View Estates and Sunshine Retirement Living, LLC. Plaintiff went to trial against the second defendant, Senior Ride and Homecare, Inc. dba OC Homecare Services with $350,000 offered. After four days of jury selection, the jury was empaneled, and defendant increased the offer to $450,000. FILING DATE: Jun. 6, 2022 PERSONAL INJURY PREMISES LIABILITY Slip and Fall Verdict: $1,741,484 CASE/NUMBER: Victoria Barbara v. Stater Bros. Markets / 30-2023-01300974-CU-PO-CJC COURT/DATE: Orange Superior / May 14, 2025 JUDGE: Michael J. Strickroth ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - Harrison Gavin Long (Morgan & Morgan); Frederick A. Rispoli (Hodl Law Cali APC) Defendant - Treashal K. Parmar, Angelica A. Samaniego (Varner & Brandt) FACTS: Plaintiff Victoria Barbara was shopping at a Stater Brothers in Huntington Beach to buy ice cream, soup, and tea. As she was shopping for her soup and tea, the frozen food aisle that contained the ice cream was being restocked all morning. As plaintiff walked through that aisle, looking for her ice cream, she slipped on a wet spot. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Stater Brothers failed to follow their sweep policy, which caused the incident. Plaintiff also alleged that the defendant failed to interview witnesses or photograph what plaintiff slipped on. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: Defendant did not deny that there was no sweep prior to the incident but instead argued that its employees conducted visual inspections. Defendant’s employees all testified that they did not see any wet spots prior to or after the incident. Defendant also contended that Plaintiff’s on-going swelling and knee pain was due to Plaintiff’s existing lymphedema issues and unrelated to the subject incident. Defendant also alleged that Plaintiff was comparatively at fault because she was walking fast, wearing crocs, and carrying a large bag filled with soup cans which contributed to her fall. INJURIES: Plaintiff sustained a patella fracture. Four months prior to the incident, Plaintiff underwent back surgery. Plaintiff also had pre- existing lymphedema in her bilateral legs for which she was receiving treatment and physical therapy. Plaintiff was wearing compression socks and crocs on the date of the incident. As of March 2023, Plaintiff had full range of motion in both knees. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS: Plaintiff initially demanded $4.5 million. Plaintiff’s last demand was $2 million. Defendant offered $100,000. RESULT: Verdict for $1,741,484 (past medical $119,484; past pain and suffering $410,000; future pain and suffering $1,212,000). FILING DATE: Jan. 6, 2023 PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT LIABILITY Manufacturing Defect Verdict: Defense CASE/NUMBER: James Shelton v. Hyundai Motor America, and Does 1 to 25, inclusive / 19STCV45621 COURT/DATE: Los Angeles Plaintiff - Jessica Sauber, Victor Marshall (MLG Attorneys at Law) Defendant - Robert W. Maxwell (Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis); Anthony E. Sonnett, Jocelyn A. Julian (Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP) FACTS: Plaintiff James Shelton was attempting to enter the front passenger seat of his 2016 Hyundai Equus, which was being operated by his son, Coleman Shelton, an offensive lineman for the Los Angeles Rams. Plaintiff placed his hand under the top of the window frame when his son closed the window, trapping plaintiff’s hand. Suit was filed against Hyundai Motor Superior / May 12, 2025 JUDGE: Bruce G. Iwasaki ATTORNEYS:

America, alleging that the vehicle’s window should have auto-reversed upon encountering plaintiff’s hand. Plaintiff sought $1.75 million in damages. Hyundai responded that the auto- reverse feature is not designed to activate under certain conditions: specifically, when the window is in manual mode, when the object it contacts is more than four millimeters in thickness, or when the auto-up function is engaged within five seconds of the window being lowered. The company asserted that these parameters are built-in safety mechanisms to prevent unwanted intrusions into the vehicle and are consistent with industry standards used by other manufacturers. Engineers retained by Hyundai tested the subject vehicle and determined that its auto-reverse feature performed as intended under the specified conditions. In contrast, plaintiff retained a technical expert who conducted non-standardized testing and concluded that the front passenger window exhibited intermittent failures of the auto- reverse function. Hyundai’s expert, Robert Lange, former Chief Safety Engineer for General Motors, reviewed the plaintiff’s test data and found the results unreliable. He concluded the tests involved obstructions measuring less than four millimeters in thickness, falling outside the design parameters for the feature. To further support its defense, Hyundai presented multiple test videos at trial demonstrating that the window operated properly and that the incident occurred either while the window was in manual mode or within the five-second window of time following its prior use. INJURIES: Plaintiff sustained crushing injuries to his right hand and a portion of his ring finger was amputated. RESULT: Defense verdict for Hyundai Motor America. FILING DATE: Dec. 19, 2019 PERSONAL INJURY AUTO V. AUTO Red Light Verdict: $8,569,756 CASE/NUMBER: Regino Gomez- Garcia v. Gladys Gallegos / CVRI2300992 COURT/DATE: Riverside Superior / May 14, 2025 JUDGE: Eric A. Keen ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - Byron (B.J.) Abron (Abron Law, P.C.); Lior M. Behdadnia, Shawn Sasooness (Sasooness Law Group APC) Defendant - Stephen C. Pasarow, Adam G. Mikaelian (Knapp, Petersen, & Clarke) FACTS: On Oct. 6, 2021, plaintiff Regino Gomez-Garcia, who worked as a janitor at Madison Elementary School in Riverside, was leaving the school’s parking lot. The exit is controlled by four-way traffic signals. Plaintiff stopped at a red light at the intersection of the school’s exit and Madison Street. Once the light turned green, plaintiff entered the intersection. At the same time, defendant Gladys Gallegos, driving her 2018 black Honda CR-V and traveling northbound on Madison Street, ran a red light, causing a collision. Both vehicles were deemed totaled. Plaintiff’s vehicle was impacted on the left side, but the only airbag that deployed was on the right side of the vehicle. Plaintiff was helped out of his vehicle by witnesses and reported a loss of consciousness at the scene. Police arrived but no medical personnel responded, and officers did not file a traffic collision report. A coworker took plaintiff to a nearby medical clinic, and later that evening, his wife took him to the emergency room. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that all the injuries and treatment were a result of the collision. Plaintiff would need future medical treatment for the rest of his life, and his life will never be the same. Plaintiff also contended that he had a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with loss of consciousness causing post-concussion syndrome. He had chronic headaches, memory loss and forgetfulness. INJURIES: Plaintiff had reports of headaches and pain in his neck (Cervical Spine). Seven days later, plaintiff started treatment with a chiropractor. Along with chiropractic care he underwent treatment with pain management, multiple orthopedic spine surgeons, neurologists, neuropsychologist, behavioral therapist. After continued pain, plaintiff ultimately underwent a cervical fusion and lumbar discectomy. After continued pain in his cervical spine, over two and a half years later he underwent a two- level hybrid surgery which included a one level fusion and second level disc replacement. The Surgery was

performed at the C5-6 and C6-7 level. Defendant claimed that plaintiff may have merely suffered a concussion and as a result a mild traumatic brain injury which was resolved in a couple of weeks. Plaintiff did not require surgery in his cervical spine and that plaintiff only had one injection prior to having surgery and that plaintiff had a significant gap in treatment for over a year with respect to his neck injury. That plaintiff went back to work a couple of weeks after the collision. Defense also argued that plaintiff suffered from degeneration prior to the subject collision and his pain is not related to the collision. As such, plaintiff’s past medical surgery was unnecessary and unrelated to the subject collision, and plaintiff requires no future care. Plaintiff alleged that his chronic headaches, memory loss and forgetfulness substantially effected his intangible qualities of life including family relationships and ability to perform his job as a custodian for the local school district. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS: Pretrial offer of $1.3 million policy limits. RESULT: Verdict for $8,569,756 (past medical expenses $429,750; future medical expenses $2,317,006; past non-economic $786,000; future non- economic $5,037,000) FILING DATE: Feb. 27, 2023 PERSONAL INJURY

Topic Defendant - Paula Hertel MSW (Senior Living Consultant); Todd Fearer M.D. (Internal Medicine); Joshua Allen (RCFE Standards of Care) FACTS: The case stemmed from the death of Lois J. Phillips, 84, who died after allegedly choking in the presence of staff members of defendant Milestone Retirement Communities LLC (“Milestone”), operators of the Residential Care Facility for the Elderly known as Sage Mountain Retirement Community (“Sage Mountain”). Plaintiffs alleged that Milestone’s dining room staff noticed the Defense Patrick Petrullo (Petrullo APC) EXPERTS: Plaintiff - Ryan Klein M.D., Scott A. Eisman (Internal Medicine, Pulmonology Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine); Michael A. Lobatz (Neurology); Cynthia Minnery (RCFE Standards of Care)

Verdict Settlement Decision the thermostat to the highest setting in order to complete the inspection more quickly, but neglected to It was also undisputed that, at the conclusion of the home inspection, the thermostat on the water heater was left at the most extreme temperature setting possible, as documented by photographs in the inspection report. Defense liability experts conceded that a water heater left at the highest possible setting would cause severe burns to skin. Plaintiff presented evidence suggesting that Flash had turned S testified that plaintiff told him that at the time of the subject incident, “he was working on his home on a new sink when water began to overflow and ran over his right arm.” $825,000 V Defense V standard of care for a reasonably prudent home inspector. Defendant cited multiple sources of evidence- -including photographs, testimony from plaintiff’s treating providers and defense experts, testimony from an individual who used hot water to deep clean the home without being burned prior to plaintiff’s occupancy, and plaintiff’s own testimony--that Defense S $1,250,000 $3,680,000 Defense return the thermostat to its baseline setting before leaving the property. However, a treating physician Defendant denied having any liability to plaintiff, asserting that it met the allegedly called into question the veracity of the subject incident and the circumstances surrounding it. RESULT: Defense verdict. The jury found that the defendant had breached the standard of care in failing to ensure that the water $10,000,000

COURT/DATE: Los Angeles Superior / May 21, 2025 JUDGE: Michael B. Harwin ATTORNEYS:

yer. He doesn’t fight the lawyer,” Daniels said. “I’m advocating for my client, and Judge So is recep- tive to that advocacy. … He’s not arguing with counsel; we’re coop- erating and communicating.” Like O’Connor, Daniels did note, however, that So won’t hesitate to firmly share his thoughts onthe case’s merits. “A lot of us lawyers need to be reminded that what we think are great cases don’t always end up as great cases once they’re put in front of a judge or a jury,” Daniels said with a chuckle. “He can re- mind you of all the times that the jury’s come back and absolutely shocked everybody – including him. And that’s something that sometimes we lawyers lose sight of.” So was quick to mention that

he’s found his new focus as a pri- vate neutral terrifically fulfilling. “One of the things that the more I do this I’ve begun to appreciate is the emotional toll on litigants some- times can be overwhelming,” he said. “And that’s why often it’s better to resolve a case when there is com- mon ground. … And it is fulfilling because I see when litigants resolve their cases, sometimes the cloud is lifted because there is finality.” Here are some attorneys who have used So’s services: William V. O’Connor, Cooley LLP; Robert M. Daniels, Skaja & Daniels LLP; Son- dra P. Gemmill, Gemmill & Asso- ciates APC; Bryan C. Swaim, Bor- din Semmer LLP; Artin Betpera, Buchalter APC

Timothy Tatro/Julie Thorpe-Lopez

Thomas Kelleher

Cynthia A. Freeland

6

San Diego litigator Sondra P. Gemmill used So recently to set- tle what she described as a high- ly contentious real estate dispute, and she said the retired judge “has a mannerism about him that’s just very calming.” “He is extremely knowledgeable and has a great judicial demeanor,” Gemmill said. “And he was able to de-escalate a very highly conflict- ed matter. … In the end, [the par- ties] left on friendly terms, which was huge.” San Diego litigator William V. O’Connor appeared before So a number of times when he was onthe bench and worked with him to settle a difficult real estate dispute. “Judge So is patient, practical, level-headed, firm,” O’Connor

O’Connor added that the retired judge spoke directly with his cli- ent in a very thoughtful and under- standing way. “He has an excellent capacity to absorb complicated issues in a case quickly and to move the par- ties towards settlement in a very practical way,” O’Connor said. “He doesn’t push too hard, but he’s also not easy on the parties in terms of explaining what he sees as a pre- ferred resolution path, which is really informed by decades of ex- perience as one of our top judicial talents in San Diego.” Daniels noted, meanwhile, that So is also very good with lawyers in his mediations. “When you’re interacting with your client, he supports the law-

Submit your recent verdict to be published

Court FACTS: Plaintiff Nassir Amaya, a 9-year-old child, was injured when his teeth became caught in a volleyball net at defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Union Avenue Elementary School. Defendant disputed Plaintiff’s version of events, asserting that Plaintiff actually ran into a permanent volleyball pole, not a volleyball net. Defendant conceded that one of its volleyball nets USDC Central did not have its lower trim piece but disputed that this created a dangerous condition of public property. RESULT: The jury found that the Union Avenue Elementary School was in a dangerous condition, Los Angeles Superior Kern Superior LAUSD had notice, and LAUSD was 100% at fault for plaintiff’s injuries. The jury awarded plaintiff $256,600. FILING DATE: Dec. 9, 2022 REAL PROPERTY DANGEROUS CONDITION OF Orange Superior San Diego Superior San Diego Superior Fresno Superior Settlement: $71,698 CASE/NUMBER: Socorro Carranza v. City of Los Angeles / Claim No. C23-110062 COURT/DATE: Los Angeles Superior / Feb. 3, 2025 ATTORNEYS: Defendant - Frederick B. Hayes (Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney) FACTS: Socorro Carranza filed a claim for damages against the City of Los Angeles after a parkway tree fell onto Carranza’s residence located at 3623 West 63rd Street in Los Angeles. Plaintiff - Abraham Sandoval, Henry Harmeling IV (Sandoval Law APC) Defendant - Samantha W. Mahoney, Albert E. Peacock III, Glen R. Piper (Peacock, Piper, Tong + Voss LLP) PUBLIC PROPERTY Negligent Maintenance PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff, Socorro Carranza, contended that the City of Los Angeles was liable for the property damage resulting from the fallen tree. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: The City of Los Angeles did not admit fault but agreed to resolve the settlement approved by the Los Angeles City Council in open session on January 28, 2025, and subsequently approved by the Mayor on February 3, 2025. The Council authorized the expenditure of $71,698.37 to resolve the matter. FILING DATE: Dec. 13, 2024 TORTS DEFAMATION Verdict: $6,500,000 CASE/NUMBER: Curtis Heffernan v. Ignite International Ltd. et al. / 20STCV25549 COURT/DATE: Los Angeles (Workplace Justice Advocate PLC); Preston H. Lim (Lim Law Group PC) Defendant - Kimberly P. Stein (Flangas Law Group); Jakub P. Medrala (The Medrala Law Firm PLLC) FACTS: Plaintiff Curtis Heffernan worked as an Executive Vice President for a cannabis company Ignite International, Ltd. as subsidiary of Ignite International Brands, Ltd. - companies founded by defendant Dan Bilzerian, an instagram celebrity who is known as the “King of Instagram” for his lavish opulent lifestyle which includes luxury trips, yachts, parties and models. In June 2020, plaintiff refused to sign off on Bilzerian’s expenses, which appeared to be personal in nature, such as a rock climbing wall, ping pong table, paintball field, and numerous charges for transportation of groceries and estate maintenance. One day after plaintiff refused to sign off on these expenses, he was fired. Superior / May 9, 2025 JUDGE: Wendy Chang ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - Tamara S. Freeze After plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Bilzerian made a statement to a tabloid media outlet, TMZ, stating that plaintiff was fired for incompetence and negligence. Plaintiff sued Ignite and Bilzerian for defamation. RESULT: The jury found for plaintiff on the defamation cause of action, against both Ignite entities and Bilzerian and awarded $6.5 million in damages. FILING DATE: Jul. 7, 2020

Daniels also said he really appre- ciates the tone So uses throughout his mediations. “He’s very clear with people, but he does it in a way where you don’t feel you’re being talked down to – nobody’s forcing you to do any- thing. He’s giving you options,” Daniels explained. “Sometimes he has to say really hard things to people that are really entrenched in their positions, and he’ll do it with a certain elegance that I think is reassuring. So when you emerge from mediation with a settlement, you understand how you got there, and you don’t feel bullied or pres- sured into it. It’s the product of

* Indicates an award or settlement granted to a cross-clamaint, counter-claimant, or defendant.

For more information, email: help@LegalAdstore.com or call 1-800-788-7840 ext. 5429

Amount

Page

Kenneth K. So Signature Resolution San Diego

INTRODUCING

CIVIL RIGHTS Excessive Force

Premiering August 1, a new way to read the Daily Journal

Areas of specialty: civil rights, real estate, employment, personal injury, professional liability

USDC Northern District of California 4

Excessive Force

4

Get your interactive digital copy delivered to your inbox.

CONTRACTS Breach of Contract EMPLOYMENT LAW Wage and Hour

news@dailyjournal.com

decedent begin to choke and failed to render aid or assistance for over six minutes while she remained in distress in the facility’s dining hall. Plaintiffs further claimed that during the incident, no Milestone employees attempted to provide care or first aid. It was also alleged that after choking for over six minutes, the decedent died in view of individuals present in the dining hall, including staff members. The case was brought as an elder neglect/wrongful death action under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”), codified at Welfare and Institutions Code 15600 et seq. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: Defendants claimed that the decedent choked while the facility’s care staff was in the process of responding to the choking event; no delay occurred. Lois J. Phillips had recently signed a DNR, which complicated the situation, and what extent of care was appropriate to render. The alleged “over six minutes” was closer to 3 minutes. Further, Lois J. Phillips appeared to have passed away within those 3 minutes from time of choking to death. Nothing could have been done. RESULT: Case settled for $10 million. FILING DATE: Apr. 26, 2023 PERSONAL INJURY Negligent Home Inspection Claim Verdict: Defense CASE/NUMBER: Victor Ruterbusch v. Flash Home Inspections, LLC / 37-2022-00006813-CU-PO-NC COURT/DATE: San Diego Superior / Aug. 27, 2024 JUDGE: Cynthia A. Freeland ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - Timothy J. Tatro, Julie Thorpe-Lopez (Tatro & Lopez LLP) Defendant - Thomas R. Kelleher (Walsh, McKean & Furcolo LLP) FACTS: Plaintiff Dr. Victor Ruterbusch sued defendant Flash Home Inspections, LLC for alleged negligence related to an incident that allegedly occurred at a single- family home purchased by Plaintiff. Plaintiff had purchased the home approximately one month earlier, in conjunction with defendant conducting a thorough home inspection. Having only been living in the home for about 48 hours, plaintiff alleged he was burned after turning on the hot and cold water in the master bathroom sink to fill the basin and wash his face. Plaintiff alleged the water was scalding at the time of the subject incident and admitted to seeing steam rising from the water. As the water overflowed onto the floor, he quickly tried to open the pop-up drain stopper to stop the overflow, exposing his arm to the scalding water. Plaintiff was alone at the time of the subject incident, but alleged that he suffered burns to his right arm from the scalding water, for which he went to the emergency room the following day. None of plaintiff’s fingertips were allegedly burned, but his hand and forearm demonstrated severe second- and third-degree burns for which he was treated at the UCSD Burn Unit. Dr. Ruterbusch underwent multiple skin grafts and hospitalizations. All medical experts agreed that Dr. Ruterbusch’s burns were consistent with being exposed to scalding water. It was undisputed that defendant had advised in its comprehensive written inspection report that the master bathroom sink was “slow draining” and that a “licensed plumber [was] recommended to estimate repairs.” It was also undisputed that there was no record of a plumber repairing the slow-draining condition of the sink prior to the subject incident. Dr. Ruterbusch denied that the sink was slow draining prior to the subject incident.

4

4

Hostile Work Environment V

4

Disability Discrimination V

4

Hostile Work Environment V

4

Introducing our interactive digital publication! Get access to any of our daily issues (Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Orange County) and our special supplemental sections in an easy-to-read digital format. Your subscription will send links straight to your inbox, with all daily issues available to read for one week.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Water Rights

LEVEL UP YOUR PRACTICE.

Cases from top verdicts across California

BD 5 Unlawful Disposition of Hazardous Waste S $7,500,000 Alameda Superior 5 PERSONAL INJURY Elder Abuse S $450,000 Orange Superior 5 Premises Liability V $1,741,484 Orange Superior 6 Product Liability V Defense Los Angeles Superior 6 Auto v. Auto V $8,569,756 Riverside Superior 6 Negligence S $1,000,000 Los Angeles Superior 6 Elder Abuse S $10,000,000 Ventura Superior 6 V Defense San Diego Superior 6 Auto v. Motorcycle S $5,300,000 Solano Superior 6 Dangerous Condition V $256,600 Los Angeles Superior 6 REAL PROPERTY Dangerous Condition of Public Property S $71,698 Los Angeles Superior 6 TORTS Defamation V $6,500,000 Los Angeles Superior 6 Writ granted heater thermostat was left on a safe temperature setting and failing to call it out in the report as a safety issue. However, the jury concluded that Flash’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. OTHER INFORMATION: Plaintiff’s motion for new trial was denied. Defendant was awarded costs. The case is currently on appeal. FILING DATE: Feb. 22, 2022 PERSONAL INJURY AUTO V. MOTORCYCLE Intersection Collision Settlement: $5,300,000 CASE/NUMBER: Thereon matter through settlement. RESULT: The result was a

NEGLIGENCE Tractor v. Bicycle

FOUR WAYS TO ENJOY THE DAILY JOURNAL

Settlement: $1,000,000 CASE/NUMBER: Alejandro Alonso v. City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Cesar Corona, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive / 22STCV29535 COURT/DATE: Los Angeles

While providing the most dependable professional liability insurance in California, Lawyers’ Mutual strives to assist our members and make the ease of doing business as a lawyer their sole focus.

MONTHLY For readers just getting started $ 95 per month

DAILY JOURNAL DIGITAL EDITION Our new interactive digital edition* $ 399 per year billed annually The daily paper and special report in an inter- active format with animated pages and video Access link emailed to your inbox every weekday Includes Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Orange County editions Digital issues available for one week, special reports available for one year

We listen to our members and have collaborated with industry-leading vendors to source valuable benefits to level up their practices. billed monthly

   

Superior / May 6, 2025 JUDGE: Lisa R. Jaskol ATTORNEYS:

Complimentary with every policy: Fastcase legal research system Cyber Coverage Endorsement Dedicated lawyer-to-lawyer hotline Unlimited access to 100+ hours of CLE Enjoy full 24/7 online access, includ- ing our full archive Weekly Verdicts and Settlements Daily Appellate Report Weekly Judicial Profiles Special Reports Online and Digital Edition only      

Plaintiff - Eber N. Bayona, Arya J. Afighom (Rafii & Associates PC) Defendant - Patty Thammalaiviroj (Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney) FACTS: Plaintiff, Alejandro Alonso, brought a lawsuit for negligence and statutory liability following a serious injury he sustained on November 5, 2021. According to Alonso, while lawfully riding his bicycle near the intersection of Mascarell Avenue and Chatsworth Drive in Los Angeles, he was struck and run over by a sanitation tractor operated by Cesar Corona, an employee of the City of Los Angeles. Alonso alleged that Corona, acting within the course and scope of his employment, negligently operated the vehicle, causing severe physical injuries, including fractures and head trauma. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Alonso contended that not only was the operator negligent, but the City, County, and State of California, along with other unnamed defendants, were liable under California Government Code §§ 815.2(a) and 820(a), and under several provisions of the California Vehicle Code. He argued that these entities negligently owned, maintained, and supervised the sanitation vehicle and its operator. Alonso sought economic and non-economic damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, and he filed timely government claims with each entity, which were either denied or deemed rejected by law. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: The City of Los Angeles denied liability but agreed to resolve the litigation to avoid the cost and uncertainty of trial. RESULT: On January 28, 2025, the City Council authorized a $1,000,000 settlement payment to Alonso, subject to reimbursement from the Solid Waste Resources Revenue Fund. This resolution was approved by the Mayor on February 3, 2025. FILING DATE: Sep. 9, 2022 PERSONAL INJURY ELDER ABUSE Nursing Home Negligence Settlement: $10,000,000 CASE/NUMBER: Lois J. Phillips, James Abbott, Karla Gauthier v. Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC, et al. / 2023CUPP008238 COURT/DATE: Ventura Superior / Apr. 1, 2025 JUDGE: Mark S. Borrell ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - William M. Berman, Harlan J. Zaback (Berman & Riedel LLP) Defendant Sage Mountain - Louis W. Pappas (Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP); Constance A. Endelicato (Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP) Defendant Milestone - Heather N. Seigler (Resnick & Louis) for Retirement Communities, LLC Defendants Ford and Gadea - John

Verdicts also available online (see page 4)

*This subscription package offers access to the digital replica of the paper each day and for up to one week of each archived edition. This package does not include online access to DailyJournal.com or the Daily Appellate Report.

Add value to your practice through these partnerships: Daily Journal MyCase case management software ANNUAL CLASSIC Our classic subscription for those who have to be in the legal know

McDaniel v. Redwood Painting Company, et al. / CU23-00971 COURT/DATE: Solano Superior / May 21, 2025 JUDGE: Stephen L. Gizzi ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - Thomas J. Brandi (Brandi Law Firm); Jeffrey C. Sevey (The Sevey Law Firm) Defendant - Jeffrey M. Vucinich (Clapp, Moroney, Vucinich, Beeman & Schele) FACTS: On May 5, 2022, defendant Gerald Salomon, an employee of defendant Redwood Painting Company, was driving his company truck and stopped behind another vehicle at the T-intersection of McCormack and McCloskey in Rio Vista. He was preparing to turn right from McCormack onto McCloskey. After the vehicle in front of him turned right, Salomon looked to his left for several seconds and, not seeing anyone, proceeded into the intersection. At that moment, plaintiff Thereon McDaniel, 55, who was riding his motorcycle home from work on McCloskey, was unable to stop and collided with the rear of Salomon’s truck, resulting in multiple injuries. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Salomon failed to see and yield to the clearly visible McDaniel. INJURIES: Plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress disorder, fractured left hand /wrist resulting in chronic non- union of fracture and subsequent tendonitis and continuing pain requiring surgery in February 2025; right shoulder injury resulting in surgical repair of tendon and hemiarthroplasty; neck injury resulting in C5-6 neck fusion with titanium plates; lower back injury with resulting pain and limitations; right knee injury resulting in total knee replacement and subsequent surgery to remove scar tissue; surgical scars on neck, shoulder, and knee. Plaintiff had C5-6, C6-7 fusion with titanium plates; right knee total replacement; right shoulder repair of tendon and hemiarthroplasty. DAMAGES: Plaintiff was unable to return to work as a mailman sustaining wage loss past and future. RESULT: The case settled at the MSC prior to trial for $5.3 million. PERSONAL INJURY DANGEROUS CONDITION School Negligence Verdict: $256,600 CASE/NUMBER: Nasir Amaya, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Gabby Torres v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. / 22STCV38367

ANNUAL CLASSIC PLUS Adding a collection of high-value additional benefits $ 949 per year billed annually Regular Price $1,149 Includes everything in Annual Classic and: SAVE $200 18 full-access article shares a value of $375)

Veritext court reporting agency e-Legal subpoena preparation Online payment options $ 795 per year billed annually Regular Price $895 Includes everything in Monthly and: SAVE $100

Get your free no obligation indication today: www.lawyersmutual.com  12 full-access article shares (a value of $250)

    

Our strength is your insurance 1 Attorney Profile (a value of $65) 2 Judicial Profile Archive Views (a value of $130) 3 MCLE Tests (a value of $108) Print, Online, and Digital Edition included

 

Enjoy a savings of $250 $350 with an annual subscription Print, Online, and Digital Edition included

send your career and office news. See page 4. On The Move

Scan the QR code or visit www.dailyjournal.com/subscribe to get your copy today.

V – VERDICT; S – SETTLEMENT; B – BENCH DECISION; SJ – SUMMARY JUDGMENT; A – ARBITRATION

PAGE 4 • MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2025

SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL

ON THE MOVE

Kabateck LLP welcomes Hrag Kouy- oumjian as a counsel in Los Angeles A seasoned trial lawyer with a strong background in complex litigation, Hrag brings a sharp focus on per- sonal injury law and a deep commitment to standing up for those who’ve been wrongful- ly harmed.

litigator and trusted advisor, he is a fierce advocate for clients facing issues at the intersection of law, business and innovation. He represents national and international clients, including well-known and publicly traded compa- nies, in the retail, energy, construction, consumer goods, insurance and automotive industries.

Farella Braun +

Buchalter welcomes Bruce Kel- son as a shareholder in San Francisco from Duane Morris Kelson focuses his practice on securities litigation and com- plex commercial lit- igation for both U.S. and foreign clients across a wide range of industries, including financial services, real estate, venture capital,

Martel LLP

welcomes Louis N.

Haas as a counsel

from Haas & Najar-

ian LLP

Managing partner of Haas & Najarian for 52 years, Haas has tried and supervised govern- ment contract disputes in virtually every forum in the country, includ- ing contract appeals boards, the U.S. Court

O’Melveny & My-

ers LLP

welcomes Skanthan Vivekananda as a part- ner in Los Angeles from Orrick, Her- rington & Sutcliffe LLP Vivekananda has more than 20 years of experience advising clients on structured finance, derivatives, and investment man- agement. He focuses

KOUYOUMJIAN

KELSON

HAAS

He has successfully represented individuals in high- stakes cases involving negligence, dangerous products, and catastrophic injuries. Known for his strategic ap- proach and relentless advocacy, Hrag is dedicated to helping clients navigate some of the most challenging moments of their lives. In addition to his role at Kabateck, Hrag is the founder of Seven Hill Law, APC, where he continues to represent clients in complex litigation. He also previously served in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, gaining valuable experience alongside lead trial attorneys on major civil matters.

of Federal Claims, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He provides busi- ness advice to clients across a wide range of industries, including real estate, manufacturing, mining, technolo- gy, and an array of service businesses.

software, and technology. He represents clients in SEC, FINRA, and other regulatory investigations and enforce- ment proceeding. He has appeared in federal and state courts and arbitral forums across California, New York, Delaware, and other jurisdictions.

VIVEKANANDA

Farella Braun +

Crowell & Moring

his practice on the formation and structuring of cash and synthetic CLOs and other securitization vehicles, as well as other credit-focused investment funds.

Martel LLP

LLP

welcomes Robert C. Nicholas as a counsel from Haas & Najar- ian LLP With more than four decades of experience, Nicholas has a diverse real estate practice representing owners and developers in the acquisition, disposition, leasing, financing, con-

welcomes Stacey Geis as a counsel in San Francisco from U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency Geis recently served at EPA headquarters, first as a senior advi- sor, then as a deputy assistant administra- tor. During her tenure, she helped to lead the

Thompson Hine

LLP

Kirkland & Ellis

LLP

welcomes William Ticknor as a partner in Santa Monica from Troutman Pepper Locke LLP Ticknor advises real estate funds, develop- ers, high-net-worth individuals, and insti- tutional investors on ac- quisitions, dispositions, and complex financing transactions. His work

welcomes Matt Ashby as a partner in Los An- geles, Century City from King & Spald- ing LLP Ashby focuses his practice on complex litigation defense. For more than a decade, he has served as local and national trial counsel for some of the largest U.S. companies in the

NICHOLAS

GEIS

struction, and management of all types of commercial properties. He has developed particular expertise in the hospitality industry, where he negotiates third-party and “brand” hotel management and hotel franchise agree- ments. He also has considerable experience in negotiat- ing, documenting, restructuring, and enforcing commer- cial leases.

2,800-person Office of Enforcement & Compliance As- surance and implement policy goals, including address- ing climate change, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and revitalization of EPA’s enforcement and compliance programs throughout the country. Most no- tably, Geis helped create EPA’s Strategic Civil-Criminal Enforcement Policy, provided guidance on EPA’s Nation- al Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives, and helped implement two recent Supreme Court decisions -- Sack- ett v. EPA, which limited the definition of wetlands under the Clean Water Act; and SEC v. Jarkesy, which limited the scope of federal administrative proceedings. At Crowell, Geis’ practice will focus on advising clients on a broad range of environmental and policy matters, including compliance assistance, corporate governance, and risk and crisis management. She will also advise on compliance and enforcement issues, including internal investigations, pre-filing negotiations, and litigation as needed.

TICKNOR

ASHBY

includes single- and multi-asset portfolios; acquisition and construction loans; refinancings; workouts; syndi- cated and securitized loans; mezzanine financings; and preferred equity. He has handled deals across a broad range of property types--industrial, hospitality, office, retail, self-storage, student housing, and multifamily--and has facilitated the acquisition and financing of high-value projects totaling

government contracting, chemical, pharmaceutical, construction, maritime, and automotive industries. He brings a unique perspective to client service based on his prior experience as a certified public accountant in California.

Greenberg Traurig,

LLP

PDFs, reprints, and wall plaques of articles are available to order, contact Jeremy Ellis 213-229-5424 jeremy_ellis@dailyjournal.com Order Reprints

welcomes Samuel Jo as a shareholder in San Diego from Perkins Coie Jo focuses his prac- tice on complex com- mercial and licensing agreements, as well as technology product and platform development, integration, launch, and counseling, with a par-

Kirkland & Ellis

LLP

more than $850 million across California and the U.S.

welcomes Julia Roma- no as a partner in Los Angeles, Century City from King & Spald- ing LLP Romano is a national- ly recognized trial law- yer and litigator, with extensive experience in products liability and California law. She has a proven track record of success for her clients

Weil, Gotshal &

Manges LLP

JO

welcomes Tom Ara as a partner in Los Ange- les from DLA Piper LLP Ara’s practice focus- es on domestic and international transac- tions across entertain- ment, sports and me-

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP welcomes Michael Maher as a partner in San Francisco from Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Maher is a strategic legal advisor and trust- ed partner to owners, operators, and inves- tors across the food, beverage, agriculture, and hospitality indus-

ticular emphasis on emerging technologies such as ma- chine learning and AI, quantum computing, aerospace, custom Silicon applications, and Internet of Things.

ROMANO

Judicate West welcomes Judge Lon F. Hurwitz as a neutral from Orange County Superior Court

ARA

in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including medical device, pharmaceutical, toxic tort and other product liability and tort cases.

Judge Hurwitz served 21 years on the Orange County Superior Court, spending 17 years in the court’s Fami- ly Law Division, including six years as its Supervising Judge. During this time, he presided over thousands of matters involving custody, finances, domestic violence, marriage dissolution, surrogacy, Hague Convention, el- der abuse, paternity, and parental termination, many of which are among the most complex issues in family law. Judge Hurwitz was assigned to the Unlimited Civil and Complex Civil departments from 2021 to 2025, where he handled high-stakes, multi-party litigation, including the high-profile San Clemente landslide cases, a mass tort dental malpractice case involving 202 minor plaintiffs, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) matters. He served on the court’s Executive Committee from 2006- 2010 and chaired its Family Violence Coordination Com- mittee from 2010-2015.

dia. He represents a broad range of clients in M&A and financing transactions, including private equity firms, investors, sovereigns, lenders and borrowers. Addition- ally, he advises entertainment companies worldwide on strategic deals and complex corporate and commercial transactions, handling billions of dollars of transactions for media properties and major sports media rights, among other high-profile deals.

Norton Rose Ful-

bright US LLP

MAHER

welcomes J. David Bournazian as a part- ner in Los Angeles from K&L Gates LLP Bournazian com- bines thoughtful legal analysis and strategy with an aggressive but practical approach to highly intricate dis- putes and business negotiations. A trial

tries. With over a decade of in-house experience as general counsel to leading wine and hospitality busi- nesses, Michael brings a practical business perspective to advising his clients. His legal practice encompasses a broad range of commercial matters, including advising businesses on strategic commercial partnerships and contracts; on acquisition, disposition, and merger trans- actions; in assessing, structuring, and negotiating real estate transactions; and in navigating complex regulato- ry operating environments.

— Douglas Saunders Submit your firm’s news about office openings, promotions and lateral hires online at www.dailyjournal.com/on-the- move/new

BOURNAZIAN

What top professionals are saying about the Daily Journal.

BASES LOADED? TOP OF THE NINTH?

“ It reports on cases and big matters, government

Hailyn J. Chen Co-Managing Partner Munger, Tolles, & Olson LLP enforcement actions... it keeps me up to date on what’s happening in the legal profession.

Maybe you need a new expert witness.

Expert Witness Directory – in print and online at dailyjournal.com/experts

Subscribe today: Call 866.531.1492 Email subscribe@DailyJournal.com Visit dailyjournal.com/dj_subscriptions/new

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs