Litigation

• After a 16-day jury trial, a defense jury verdict was obtained in a wrongful death elder abuse case, in which plaintiffs asked the jury to award $5 million in damages and sought punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The case was tried following extensive discovery, including more than 25 depositions. A non-suit was obtained as to the personal liability of the Board members, and a dismissal of the Board members. It was successfully argued that plaintiffs' two treating physicians should be added to the special verdict form, and that the jury should be allowed to apportion liability to the two treating physicians. Following a one-day deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict on both the negligence cause of action and the wrongful death cause of action, which negated any claim for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
• In a case involving an attempt to obtain satisfaction of the judgment against client insurance company's insured, client insurer interpled the judgment amount, and sought offset of certain amounts. While plaintiff had a judgment against the insureds in the amount of approximately $400,000, client insurer's other insured had a judgment against plaintiff in the amount of approximately $250,000. Client insurer asked the Court to offset the judgments. Due to various claims, three separate parties asserted that client insurer was not entitled to an offset. The case was litigated very heavily, with the various parties asserting priority. The parties stipulated to a court trial. After briefing and argument, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to this matter, in which the Court ruled that client insurer had a right to equitable offset, and that that right to offset had priority over plaintiff's claims. Within hours of the ruling, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
• In a case involving an alleged incident involving a claim for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries after undergoing "a massage by one or more massage therapists and masseuses including defendant." Plaintiff claims that the masseuse used "excessive force and massage techniques on plaintiff," which caused plaintiff to "incur X-Rays, medical and sundry expenses in the examination, care and treatment of plaintiff's injuries" and that plaintiff is now "unable to pursue the plaintiff's vocation." Going into the mediation, we believed the settlement value of this case was $70,000. Plaintiff's demand was $250,000; we believed plaintiff was looking to recover at least $100,000, and would likely try to settle for $150,000. The case was settled for less than our evaluation of liability.
• In a six-day binding arbitration in an employment case, plaintiff sought $5,600 for uncontradicted wage and hour violations, plus over $611,000 in damages, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages. Following arbitration, plaintiff demanded $600,000. Client authorized settlement in the amount of $100,000; a $40,000 offer was deemed too low to merit any response by plaintiff's counsel, who also argued for attorneys' fees in excess of $150,000. The Arbitrator awarded $3,000 for the wage and hour violations, nothing for the other claims, and limited attorneys' fees to only those fees related to attorneys' fees spent with reference to the Labor Code violations.
• Dismissal was obtained of a lawsuit filed against an assisted living facility that alleged wage and hour violations and sought in excess of $240,000 in damages.
• In a 3-day binding arbitration, in which claimant sought an amount in excess of the policy limit, an award was obtained for less than the last settlement demand.

Published Cases (Litigation)

• California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.: Represented an insurer client before the California Court of Appeal. The appellate court upheld a manuscript exclusion included in a policy issued to a rough framing subcontractor regarding liability arising out of work performed on condominium and townhome projects. The insured argued he reasonably expected coverage as the units had many of the outward appearances of non-condominium detached single family homes (e.g. freestanding units with non-shared walls and utility lines); and (2) the exclusion was ambiguous because the term "condominium project" was not defined in the policy, and a reasonable insured would not have viewed the exclusion as precluding coverage for the insured's framing work performed on freestanding units "that did not bear the indicia commonly associated with a condominium project." The trial court rejected these arguments and granted our client's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal has affirmed, helping to solidify the intent of these condo project exclusions, so important to many of our clients.

• California Western School of Law  (J.D., 1997)
  • American Jurisprudence Award in Partnership Taxation
  • Dean's Honors List, 1996 and 1997
• Santa Clara University  (B.S., 1993)

• California