Civil Action with Brian & Shant

37. Civil Procedure – Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law; Childhood Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations; Appealing a Statement of Decision; Relief Under 473b and its Limitations

Halyard Health v. Kimberly Clark 2^nd DCA

Brian and Shant discuss a declaratory relief action in a matter that arises out of Michael Avenatti’s Kimberly Clark Case.  The issue is whether Delaware or California law dictates which defendant is responsible for a punitive damages award granted to the plaintiffs. 

 

Safechuck v. MJJ Productions 2^nd DCA

Brian and Shant discuss childhood sexual assault lability of a 3^rd party non-perpetrator and whether a revival statute applies to two adults over the age of majority.  AB 218 recently amended the statute of limitations under CCP 340.1, and claims can now be brought before the victim’s 40^th birthday.  Even if an action was previously dismissed, the issue of whether the amended statute applies is determined by the finality of the underlying dismissed action.

 

Warwick Ca. Corp v. Applied Underwriters 1^st DCA

Brian and Shant discuss an appeal from a statement of decision issued by a trial court.  A statement of decisions is not an automatically appealable order because it is not a judgment that has can be entered or enforced.  It can be a precurser to a judgment but here no judgment was ever entered. 

 

Shayan v. Spine Care & Orthopedic Physicians 2^nd DCA

Brian and Shant discuss an interpleader action where a client had to compete with the other creditors for the remainder of the settlement.  Ultimately, the opposition did not show up to the interpleader action and subsequent counsel sought to vacate under a 473(b) motion. Failing to appear for a trial does not warrant relief.

36. Defense Perspective from Dana Fox and Eddie Ward of Lewis Brisbois

Brian and Shant speak with renowned defense attorneys Dana Fox and Eddie Ward. They discuss the defense perspective on trials, civility, and moving cases along current COVID-19 crisis. Dana Fox and Eddie Ward are partners at Lewis Brisbois. Dana Fox has a reputation as the “go-to” attorney in high profile, high exposure catastrophic accident, police use of force, premises and product liability, public entity, and general liability cases. Edward Ward has tried multiple high exposure cases to verdict, including cases involving wrongful death, catastrophic injury, premises liability and employment matters.

35. COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

Brian and Shant discuss business interruption insurance with Michael Childress, Of Counsel at Kabateck LLP. 

 

With all the closures, businesses large and small are taking the inordinate hit for the rest of society to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 virus.  We primarily look at property insurance policies.  This is where we find coverage for damage to dwellings, buildings, and business income losses.  Also termed lost profits or business interruption coverage.  Business interruption is an additional coverage available in almost every commercial property insurance policy.  As a result, there is little doubt whether business interruption coverage will come to bear in almost every situation.

34. Tort Cases – Substantial Factor Test; Primary Assumption of Risk Doctrine; Going and Coming Rule and An Exception; Immunity for Police Officers Engaged in a High-Speed Pursuit

Union Pacific Railroad v. Ameron Pole Property

Brian and Shant discuss an inquiry into the causation element of an accident involving a light pole.  The plaintiff’s case first thrown out on summary judgment was later reversed because the remaining parties’ indemnity suit and the plaintiff’s complaint were inextricably connected.

 

Gordon v. ARC Manufacturing, Inc. 4^th DCA

Brian and Shant discuss whether or not the court should have instructed the jury on primary assumption of risk on an inherently dangerous activity.  The court did not and the issue on appeal was that very issue.  Shant further details that the nature of the activity not the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, is a determining factor.

 

Bingener v. City of LA 2^nd DCA

Brian and Shant discuss the exceptions to the Going and Coming Rule after a water treatment worker struck and killed a pedestrian on his way to his water treatment plant.  The plaintiff argues that his workplace would be liability because they allowed him to come back to work too early after a prior workplace injury.

 

Riley v. Alameda County Sheriff Office 1^st DCA

Police immunity for officers involved in vehicular accidents as a result of a police pursuit.  The policy addressing pursuit must be certified and it must address speed and air support.  Brian and Shant unpack the policy requirements to determine liability.

33. Meal & Rest Breaks; Replacement Class Representative; Classification Exemptions; Objection to Class Settlements

Cacho v. Eurostar

Defendant had facially non-compliant meal & rest break policies.  The court concluded that the class cannot be certified because Plaintiff did not sufficiently illustrate a uniform policy of missed meal breaks.  Individual questions predominated as to whether the plaintiff missed rest and meal breaks. 

 

In Re Williams Sonoma

A Kentucky resident brought a consumer class action against Williams Sonoma.  However, Kentucky does not provide a legal platform for consumer class actions.  Trial court allowed Plaintiff’s Counsel to conduct discovery to identify a California resident to serve as class representative. Defendants took a writ which the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeal granted. Court of appeal held that pre-certification discovery of the identity of class members is not permitted here, given Defendant’s privacy interests. As a result, without discovery to identify who the class representative might be, the case stalls.

 

Safeway Wage & Hour Cases

An appeal from a rare jury trial of a class action case regarding misclassification of assistant managers who were listed as exempt presumptively as a ploy to avoid protections from wage and hour guidelines.  Jury found in favor of employer, and found that assistant managers were correctly classified as exempt. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Court gave improper instruction to the jury. Court of Appeal clarifies the rules regarding exempt work, but ultimately affirms the verdict.  

 

Murphy v. SFBSC Management

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's approval of a settlement notice process and a class action settlement, negotiated without a certified class, in a case arising out of a dispute under federal and California labor law regarding whether exotic dancers working at various nightclubs in San Francisco were misclassified as independent contractors rather than being treated as employees.

BONUS CONTENT: Interview with Niall McCarthy at the 2019 CAOC Convention in San Francisco

From his first trial representing a family in a bad faith case resulting in a successful verdict to his recent whistleblower cases returning money to the federal government, Niall is passionate about his advocacy for the under-represented.  Niall has spent his entire 28-year career with his current firm where is the managing partner.  He suggests young lawyers to have the courage to expand their comfort zone and encourages lawyers to give opportunities to young lawyers.  More information about Naill McCarthy is available here: https://www.cpmlegal.com/

BONUS CONTENT: Interview with Minh Nguyen at the 2019 CAOC Convention in San Francisco

The son of immigrant parents and the eldest of eight children, Minh is no stranger to hardship. Minh worked three jobs through college to fund his family’s mortgage and made his way to Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. Minh’s passion for advocacy comes through in his personal injury trial practice and his pro bono work from his past presidency of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers’ Charities, low-income, affordable housing work at Linc Housing, community work at the YMCA of Greater Long Beach, and his upcoming presidency of CAALA in 2023. More information about Minh Nguyen and his practice can be found here: https://www.nguyenlawyers.com/

BONUS CONTENT: Interview with Greg Bentley at the 2019 CAOC Convention in San Francisco

From an early age, the son of an elementary school principle and school secretary, Greg understood his path to protect those who were unable to protect themselves. Greg’s practice in Newport Beach was one of the first practices to successfully take an e-cigarette matter to trial.  Greg discusses one of his most memorable cases as a plaintiffs’ attorney where he successfully advocated for an elderly woman who had tragically lost the use of her limbs and extremities due to an accident involving a city-operated vehicle.  Greg also pays great respect to William Shernoff, the great practitioner of insurance bad-faith.  More information about Greg Bentley and his team is available here: https://www.bentleymore.com/

32. The Perils of Litigation Funding

Brian and Shant discuss various types of litigation funding available to lawyers and law firms, and the potential pitfalls of the borrowing money to fund cases. Though not a novel practice in the legal profession, reliance on loans can become problematic for the practitioner and for the plaintiffs’ bar as a whole.

Have questions for us? You can reach us at 213-217-5000, or visit our website at www.kbklawyers.com.

BONUS CONTENT: Interview with Craig Peters at the 2019 CAOC Convention in San Francisco

 Craig discusses how he approached his first trial just short of 30 days of becoming a practicing lawyer and how it helped develop his skill despite how difficult the challenge.  Craig uses his 13-year career as a Contra Costa County Public Defender as a foundation to approach his cases from a different perspective.  Craig’s unique perspective allows him to view even the most challenging matters with confidence and positivity.  More information about Craig and his practice can be found here: https://altairlaw.us/