Menu
MENU
The number of jury trials going out in our state trial courts continues to drop each year, and the trials-to-actual-verdict ratio seems to experience an even greater percentage drop. The experience in our local Bay Area courts follows the downward trend. Of course, the reasons are many and varied and open to wild speculation.
Anecdotally, we are told civil filings are down, thus fewer cases are in the system. There is also speculation that successful mediations have led to settlements in most cases. The incredible cost of experts is another reason we see cases resolving before trial. Certainly the courts are under severe budget constraints and our judges simply do not have the time to conduct trials given the number of cases each civil trial judge is saddled with.
That, perhaps, helps to explain the pressure brought to bear by our civil courts to get things resolved, and don’t forget the experience of civil trial judges watching their civil jury verdicts go exactly as predicted. We don’t often hear “I told you so” from our judges, but they certainly could say that in most cases in which a civil jury verdict is entered.
I’m not really sure how long I have been writing the Civil Jury Verdicts column for the Contra Costa Lawyer, but it has been many years. Although the number I write about is certainly way down, the predictability of the results remains the same. Clearly, insurance companies use statistics to predict outcomes and case values, and depending on your perspective, they generally get it right.
Recently, I had a discussion with a claims representative at a conference. That person worked for a large and very well-known insurance company, with a large in-house law firm. I was told the company had taken cases to trial only twice in the past year. That is how the world has changed in the civil trial world. Although my most interesting verdicts over the years were those which were aberrant and did not follow what was predicted, I cannot tell you how many times I have written about a rejected offer or a rejected demand, with a very large adverse verdict.
I have repeated many times what Judge Cahill said to me in San Francisco some years ago when he was still on the bench and I had a significant adverse verdict go against my client in a jury trial. He said in words to this effect: In most cases when a case goes to trial, one side or the other miscalculated. That certainly is not to say there are not cases which need to go to trial. A genuine dispute with good arguments on both sides is what the system should be all about.
Finally, a little aside about the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). I have been repeatedly told in the past few years that it seems the only new folks (without gray hair) who can qualify for the minimum number of civil jury verdicts to trial are staff counsel of insurance companies. Feel free to weigh in on this one.
Now onto some civil verdicts for your entertainment.
Franet v. Tseng, Case No MSC13-02223, was tried in Contra Costa Superior Court before the Hon. Jill Fannin. Larry Cook of Walnut Creek represented the plaintiff and Jennifer Kung-Gelini (CSAA staff counsel) represented the defendant.
Factually, the case had some interesting issues. The plaintiff, an 85-year-old retired teacher, observed a baby left alone in a car seat in a vehicle in a shopping center parking lot. She called the police, wrote down the vehicle license plate number and held a piece of cardboard over the window to block the sun from the infant. The defendant came out of a store, got into her vehicle and backed out of the parking space. As she backed out, the plaintiff walked along beside the defendant’s vehicle, and at some point, the vehicle ran over and broke the plaintiff’s foot.
The plaintiff had significant medical specials and claimed significant damages related to required caregiver expenditures. The plaintiff, by CCP 998, early in the litigation, demanded the policy limits of $100,000. The defendant, early in the litigation, offered by CCP 998 $35,000.
Just before trial, the defendant offered $75,000. That was rejected by the plaintiff and the case proceeded to trial. The jury, by 9 to 3, returned a defense verdict. Predictable verdict? You tell me!
I stopped into Judge Craddick’s court room one day in October and had to wait while she instructed the jury in a “wrongful termination” matter. Turns out, it was the sixth jury trial she had since June. So, there goes my argument that cases are not getting out to trial in Contra Costa Superior Court.
I listened to the instructions and my ears perked up. Among other things, the jury was instructed on “Asperger’s syndrome.” A couple of days later, I checked in and found that there had been a verdict. The case was entitled Wasserman v. Costco, Case No. MSC12-00617. The Hon. Judith Craddick presided. Stephen Murphy of San Francisco represented the plaintiff and Mark Grajski of Sacramento represented the defendant, Costco.
The plaintiff, a nine-year employee of Costco, was terminated from his employment with Costco. He alleged the termination was a result of his Asperger’s syndrome. The defense denied the termination had anything to do with Asperger’s.
The first question on the verdict form asked: “Did the plaintiff have Asperger’s syndrome?” The jury reportedly answered that in the negative. Thus, case over; defense verdict.
Kosich v. Pheasant and the Pear Inc., Case No. MSC13-00017, was tried before the Hon. Judith Craddick. Brad Bowles of Walnut Creek represented the plaintiff. Zach Smith of Oakland represented the defendant restaurant.
The plaintiff alleged significant injuries due to a slip and fall on water on the floor in the restroom of the defendant restaurant. The plaintiff claimed specials of $113,503. By CCP 998, the plaintiff demanded $150,000. By CCP 998, the defendant offered $34,000. At trial, the plaintiff asked the jury to award between $300,000 and $600,000. The jury returned a defense verdict.
Solorzano v. Rayana Pitts-Godfrey et al, Case No. MSC13-00675, was tried before the Hon. Judith Craddick. Nicholas J. Mastrangelo and Edward Mastrangelo of Orinda represented the plaintiff. Peter Hirsig and Brandon L.S. Hansen of Fairfield represented the defendants.
The matter involved a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was operating a motorcycle when he was broadsided in an intersection by a vehicle driven by the defendant, Godfrey. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries.
The plaintiff served a CCP 998 offer for the policy limits of $100,000. By CCP 998, the defendant offered $25,000. The jury awarded the plaintiff $59,875.07 in past medical expenses, $30,000 in future medical expenses, $170,000 in past non-economic damages and $202,500 in future non-economic damages. The gross verdict was $462,325.07.
Weinstein v. Meyer, Case No P11-01223, was heard by the Hon. John Sugiyama. (Just to let you readers know, when a “P” appears before a case number, it means it is a probate case). The trial lasted 33 days of half-day hearings and testimony. Goodness! The case was consolidated with civil case No. MSC12-00064. The order is not yet final on the civil aspect of the case, so this report will only be about the probate aspect, so stay tuned. At any rate, here is the report on the probate aspect of the consolidated matter:
Frank Mulberg and Brett Mulberg represented the petitioner, Denise Weinstein. Maria Lawless represented the respondent Patricia Meyer. David Ginn represented the respondents Christina Meyer, Nicole Meyer, Jordan Meyer and Dawn Ward. Chris Lucas represented Anne Meyer. Thank you to David Ginn for kindly reporting the case to me.
Denise Yvonne Meyer Weinstein was the oldest daughter among the children of Jay Meyer and his then-wife, Yvonne Meyer. Denise sued Jay Meyer’s second wife of some 30 years, and the children of that second family, alleging Mr. Meyer lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced to execute a trust which called for the surviving spouse to have control over the disposition of the assets of the trust.
Evidence at trial showed that Mr. Meyer was deeply involved in complex business matters at the time he executed the estate planning documents. Medical experts, retained by Denise, relied on autopsy evidence to opine on Mr. Meyer’s mental state some five years before his death.
The court specifically found that Mr. Meyer was competent at the time of the execution of the estate planning documents. The court specifically found there was no undue influence and that the testimony of the two medical experts was not credible.
A wrongful death case entitled Nguyen et al v. Xu, Well Trucking Inc., et al, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG13-676150, was tried before the Hon. Frank Roesch. Bradley M. Corsiglia of San Jose and Andrew Schwartz of Walnut Creek represented the three plaintiff families.
The three decedents were traveling to work when the vehicle they were riding in was involved in a head-on accident caused by, among other things, the negligent operation of a big rig truck. The decedents left behind their spouses and seven children.
The jury awarded a gross verdict of $13.7 million. Mr. Corsiglia’s two plaintiff families received $8.5 million. Mr. Schwartz’s clients received $5.2 million.
City of Hayward v. Rabani et al, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG 13692337, was tried before the Hon. George C. Hernandez. The Law Firm of Goldfarb & Lipman represented the plaintiff, City of Hayward. Robin Thornton of San Ramon represented the defendant property owners.
The trial related to the amount of compensation due to the property owners for the taking of a portion of their property in the City of Hayward. The property had been leased and operated as an auto salvage yard. The City of Hayward wished to take a portion of the property, bisecting the owners’ property to create a pathway for a new road.
The city initially appraised the takings, including a temporary construction easement, fee taking, severance damages and benefits at $181,038. For trial, that appraisal was raised to $199,319. The defendant property owners’ expert’s appraisal was $1,296,000, then decreased at trial to $1,236,000. The jury returned a total verdict of $651,174.
Estate of Rose G. McGushin, Plumas County Superior Case No. GN PR13-00028, was reported by Konstantine “Kosta” Demiris of Demiris & Moore of Walnut Creek. The case involved a will contest. I will start off by saying Kosta secured a victory for his client Margaret McGushin in the probate matter. No jury trial this time, but a nice verdict. At trial, the court upheld the express language of the will as clear and unambiguous and held the terms would be interpreted under the ordinary meaning under the probate code. Should it be any other way? By the way, where does one stay when trying a case in Plumas County?
Mahan v. Arellano went to trial before the Hon. Stephan Baker in Shasta County Superior Court. Eric Berg of Redding represented the plaintiff. Thomas Beatty of Walnut Creek represented the defendant. Tom obviously had to travel all the way up to Redding just to get a case out to trial. The facts provided perhaps will explain why he traveled that far for a case. The plaintiff, Mahan, was reportedly having a sexual relationship with the wife of the defendant, Arellano. At the time of the “event,” the wife was 8 ½ months pregnant. The defendant discovered the “info” during the birth of his child a few weeks later.
The plaintiff was a body builder and a member of a “hot shot” fire crew. Approximately six months after (not sure after the event or after the birth), the defendant, who in his mind was reconciling with his wife, went to the family home and found the plaintiff once again. The plaintiff claimed the defendant attacked him with a knife and stabbed him in the head. Arellano claimed he was acting in self-defense. The plaintiff alleged he suffered a brain injury requiring brain surgery, and caused PTSD and epilepsy, all of which precluded him ever working as a fire fighter and precluded his work as an owner of a CrossFit studio.
The defendant’s parents owned the house in question and were named defendants in the matter.
At trial, the plaintiff demanded $5.75 million. After a 16-day trial, the jury returned a verdict against the Arellano parents, who owned the house, in the sum of $109,000; less 40 percent comparative fault, and less $40,000 for a previously purchased medical lien. The net verdict for the plaintiff was $37,000, plus costs.
Honestly folks, you cannot make this stuff up.
So that is that for this column of Civil Jury Verdicts. Please keep those cards and letters coming to me at mguichard@gtplawyers.com. I have heard this is a popular column, but we cannot regularly write it if we don’t hear about your cases. And remember we will report on any interesting cases, whether jury trial, court trial or an interesting settlement.
Here’s the link to Contra Costa Lawyer:
Civil Jury Verdicts – December 2015
WILLIAM PORTELLO & ERIKA PORTILLO GUICHARD, TENG & PORTELLO Attorneys/Abogados Civil Litigation, Immigration, Trials, Business, White Collar Criminal Defense Tel: 925.459.8440 Local: 530.361.6801 Email: wportello@gtplawyers.com and eportillo@gtplawyers.com Address: 103 S Plumas, Willows
Although no one ever wants to be in this position, if you were pulled over for a DUI – give us a call at 925.459.8440 or 530.297.3290. We can help navigate the courts and DMV for you making a tough, embarrassing experience more manageable. Call us. We can help!
Okay, you noticed this column is both a Bar Soap and a Civil Jury Verdicts column. I have been sitting on a couple of trial reports while waiting for more, but I just couldn’t wait any longer. So, this will be a combined column.
Let’s start with the verdicts. I received a “Client Alert” stating “Allan Isbell and Craig Jones Net a Victory in Placer County Jury Trial.” Special Counsel Allan Isbell and Special Counsel Craig Jones, both of Archer Norris, represented the defendant general contractor. Randy Paul and Jordan Rojas of Berding & Weil represented the plaintiffs.
The case involved a 850-unit self-storage facility constructed by the defendant in Auburn, California. A significant water intrusion problem arose, knocking approximately 30 percent of the units offline, as they were not rentable. The plaintiffs demanded $5.2 million at trial. The defendant offered $102,500 pre-trial. The jury returned with a verdict which netted the plaintiffs just $53,352 in damages.
Quijada et al v. Ford Motor Co., Maita Investments, et al, Case No. 2010-34-00085696, was tried in Sacramento County Superior Court. The Honorable Kevin R. Culhane presided. Jason Sigel of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP, and Lee Brown of the Brown Law Firm represented the plaintiffs. William Kronenberg and Steven Yuen represented the defendant, Maita Investments.
Plaintiff Edward Quijada was driving on westbound Highway 50 near Tahoe when he lost control of his 2006 Ford F-150 pickup truck. The truck was equipped with an aftermarket lift kit. Quijada was rendered a quadriplegic as a result of the accident. Defendant Maita Investments was the successor in interest to Maita Ford Mercury, a Ford retailer and the installer of the truck’s aftermarket tires and wheels. All other defendants settled prior to trial.
The plaintiffs brought causes of action for strict products liability, negligence and sought punitive damages. The plaintiffs demanded $11 million. The defendant offered $500,000. The jury returned a defense verdict on liability.
Vang v. Barbosa et al, Case No. 13CECG01211, was tried in Fresno County Superior Court. The Honorable Mark Snauffer presided. The plaintiffs were represented by Jonathan Netzer of Fresno. Defendants Mendoza and Andrade were represented by Michael Clarke of our own McNamara firm. Shyla Smith represented Defendant Barbosa.
The case involved claims of personal injury related to a four-vehicle rear end accident on Highway 99. Defendant Barbosa got a flat tire, and rather than pulling to the shoulder, stopped his vehicle in the fast lane. The case appeared to have settled at mediation for $36,000, but the plaintiffs did not sign the mediation settlement agreement.
The jury awarded a gross recovery from all defendants of $41,921. The jury found Barbosa 60 percent at fault. That extra $6,000 hardly covered the effort of going to trial, it seems.
Did you notice there were no reported Contra Costa cases? Time to get those Contra Costa civil verdict reports to me.
Now, let’s move on to “People on the Move.” Gina Dashman Boer has become a partner at Haapala, Thompson & Ahern, LLP. Lisa Estabrook has been elevated to partner at Archer Norris. Congratulations to both.
James Slone has announced the opening of “James Slone, Esq., Mediation & Arbitration Services.”
My law firm, Guichard, Teng & Portello, is making the move back to Walnut Creek. We spent a very nice 10 years in Concord and now we will be located at 101 Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek. Rumor has it we soon will be Guichard, Teng, Portello & Portillo, or some such mixture of names. Keep an eye out for that change. While I am mentioning moves, I spent a wonderful afternoon at a tribute to Ropers Majeski partners at an event in Marin hosted by Chuck Louderback. It was wonderful seeing old friends, and I do mean old friends. My, how time goes by.
We just lost our summer intern, Lu Zhang. She is a licensed lawyer in China and went back to Shanghai to practice law, after getting her LL.M. at UC Davis. Stacey N. Zhao was another intern and she is now a licensed California lawyer working for the state of California.
Recall I mentioned my client, Rebecca Li-Huang’s book, “Green Apple Red Book” in my last column. I had mentioned the book won an award at the San Francisco Book Festival. Well, the book just won an award in New York at another book festival.
Sadly speaking of old friends, Raymond (Ray) Jacque Bergez recently passed. He was a great fellow, involved in every conceivable legal organization imaginable, and full of life to the very end. I even saw him regularly at Larkey Sharks swim meets, as his grandkids swam on the same swim team as two of my kids.
I just heard we lost Paula A. Lorentzen. I knew her as Paula Gorelick back in my Deputy DA days in Contra Costa County. She was a brilliant defense lawyer and a formidable opponent.
As always, keep those cards and letters coming to me at mguichard@gtplawyers.com. I cannot mention your trials, settlements and achievements if you do not let me know of them.
Admittedly, I have been remiss in preparing this Bar Soap column. Many things of interest have arisen within the past two months, and I am hopeful I can report on all of them, so let’s get started.
The April Welcome Celebration for our new Bar Association Executive Director, Theresa Hurley, was a great success. Many thanks to the Brown, Church & Gee law firm for hosting that wonderful event. I was most impressed with all the new young faces present. That, of course, means the CCCBA continues to be a dynamic and ever evolving organization; nothing stale about it.
It was also wonderful to see another generation taking leadership, as I chatted with the new Board President, Nick Casper, and with his father and former president, Stan Casper.
My separate article on Coroner’s Inquests in our county was well received. I have gotten many questions from readers inquiring as to the identity of the official coroner in Contra Costa. Sorry I failed to mention it in the article. As in most counties in California, the coroner is also the sheriff. So our Sheriff Coroner is David Livingston. Sheriff Livingston is also a licensed attorney in the state of California and a member of the Contra Costa County Bar Association.
It always warms my heart to report on prestigious awards earned by local Contra Costa attorneys. Our own Andy Schwartz recently became a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier legal associations in America. For trial lawyers, it is as prestigious an honor as one can get. His induction ceremony took place in Key Biscayne, Florida. Rumor has it that he had to purchase a tuxedo for the event. Congratulations, Andy, on the very high honor.
And speaking of awards, a number of you have reported being honored as “Super Lawyers.” In fact, Harvey Sohnen reported that he is the only Super Lawyer practicing employment law between the Caldecott Tunnel and the Lafayette border. And seriously, it is an honor to be named a Super Lawyer, so please let me know and I will mention it. Natasha S. Chee was selected for “Rising Stars for Super Lawyers.” She is on the board of our Barristers Section.
Many local lawyers are on the move. I missed the Law Practice Management Series program entitled, “Look Before You Leap in Changing Law Firms,” but I am interested to hear if it had any effect on the moves.
Matthew Talbot is now at the Law Offices of Matthew B. Talbot. Another one of my former Ropers Majeski colleagues, Adrian Driscoll, is now at Murphy Pearson. Jeffrey T. Thayer recently made partner at DeHay & Elliston, LLP, in Oakland. Jeff is on the board of our Barristers Section. James Wu and Claudia Castillo have teamed up to form Wu Castillo, PC, specializing in employment law. Gina Boer has become a partner at Haapala, Thompson & Abern, LLP.
Robert M. Slattery has changed the direction of his legal career. After 40 years of trial work, he is now going to focus on his own practice of mediation, specializing in professional negligence cases. Robin Pearson was just elected as Vice Chair of the State Bar Council on Access & Fairness. Guichard, Teng & Portello is planning a move back to Walnut Creek by the end of June. I think the firm will be called Guichard, Teng, Portello & Portillo; keep a look out.
And seemingly all too often, I report on the loss of members of the CCCBA. Tom Henze, a former Walnut Creek/Danville attorney and former member of our local bar passed away in Oregon, where he had retired. Dick Grossman, a local attorney and a former Walnut Creek police officer, passed away last December.
And an attorney a little closer to me, Forrest Plant, a longtime fixture in the Sacramento legal community at Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, and a former president of the California State Bar Association, passed away recently. His father was the first city attorney for Davis, having put together the articles of incorporation for that city. My middle name is Plant, just to let you know the connection.
And once again, I would like to mention the Contra Costa County Mock Trial Competition. The yearly event took place a couple of months ago. The high school teams take over the Bray Courthouse for a number of evenings during the week. It’s amazing to see the skill and intensity of the teams.
I was honored to act as a judge for the competition. I was also very happy to see the large number of volunteers from the legal community and the local bench who participated as judges, mentors and evaluators. Volunteer next year if you can.
I am in the process of preparing another “Civil Jury Verdicts” column. As you have probably noticed, those columns have become few and far between. I am simply not getting the reports as I once did. Believe it or not, when I first began writing that column, it came out every month. I just received enough reports to make it on its own. Occasionally, as you may have noticed, I include jury verdicts in this Bar Soap column.
And speaking of trials, I tried a case in Santa Clara County, representing business clients who were born and raised in China. One of my clients, Rebecca Li-Huang, wrote a book about the experience, and it just was named as an honorable mention at the San Francisco Book Festival. The book is entitled “Green Apple Red Book: A Trial and Errors.” It is an interesting and fun read, but I must say, I do not recall all the excerpts in which I am mentioned.
I would be remiss if I did not mention a topic which pains many of us who were former deputies as well as the current members of the local District Attorney’s Office. I have followed the case in the papers and occasionally through PACER in the U.S. District Court. The Michael Gressett v. Contra Costa County, et al case now appears to be at an end. Summary judgment was granted in its entirety. It is a sad saga for all parties.
For a number of years, I have served as the hearing officer in Coroner’s Inquests in Contra Costa County and a few other Northern California counties. I am often asked to explain the process. In doing so, more often I discuss what it is not, rather than what a Coroner’s Inquest actually entails.
In most counties in California, the elected sheriff is also the elected coroner. That is the case in Contra Costa County, where a Coroner’s Inquest is held in all cases involving a death related in any way to law enforcement.
That means when an inmate in county jail dies in his sleep of natural causes, we have an Inquest. When a death involves a police shooting, a fatal car chase, a suicide witnessed by law enforcement, a fight with officers resulting in a death, a Coroner’s Inquest is held.
Keep in mind the sheriff coroner can order an Inquest for any death, even if there is no law enforcement connection. But in all cases involving law enforcement, an Inquest is conducted.
By law in California, all deaths are categorized by one of four modes or manners of death: Natural Causes, Suicide, Accident and At the Hands of Another Other Than By Accident. One can readily see how those four modes fit all deaths.
The fellow who died of a heart attack while sleeping in his cell would fit “Natural Causes.” The fellow who purposely jumped in front of a moving big rig when officers were checking on his safety on the freeway, committed “Suicide.” The cyclist who was hit and accidently run over by a patrol car, died of an “Accident.” And the person who was shot and killed by a police officer, typically died “At the Hands of Another, Other Than By Accident.”
The latter category might be “Suicide by Cop” when the evidence supports such a finding.
A Coroner’s Inquest is not a grand jury proceeding and is held in open court. No witnesses are excluded from the courtroom; it is open to the public. A court reporter takes down the entire proceeding. A jury is picked from the regular pool of jurors. Attorneys representing the family of the decedent may present written questions to the hearing officer to be asked of witnesses. The jury listens to all the testimony and then deliberates. The only question it is required to answer is: Which of the four modes of death applies in the particular case? Only one can be chosen.
In a Coroner’s Inquest, the hearing officer conducts the jury voir dire, presents all the witnesses, questions all the witnesses and reads the jury instructions to the jury. It is not an adversarial proceeding. It is designed to put into the open the circumstances of the death of a human being. It does not assign fault, either criminal or civil, to anyone. Not to the decedent, nor to the involved officer or officers. That is for a different venue.
We often hear there is a lawsuit related to the same death as is presented in a Coroner’s Inquest. The two are completely unrelated, legally. It is however, often the first time a family hears the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved one.
Contra Costa County has a very sophisticated and robust system for investigating any law enforcement-related fatalities. That system is regularly referred to as LEIFI, or the Law Enforcement Involved Fatal Incident protocol. When an officer-involved fatal incident occurs, the District Attorney’s Office takes charge and partners with the venue agency. It may be that more than one police agency is involved. Teams are immediately assigned and a very thorough investigation is conducted.
The involved officers are sequestered, witnesses are contacted and interviewed, any video or audio recordings are gathered, an autopsy and background checks are conducted, the family is interviewed, toxicological studies are conducted and much more.
The Coroner’s Inquest is designed to put into the open all the circumstances surrounding the death and all aspects of the investigation. And that is precisely what happens at a Coroner’s Inquest.
Yes, I am back with another Civil Jury Verdicts column. No, I did not move out of town. There just have not been sufficient reports for me to prepare a Civil Jury Verdicts column. I now have some reports so here goes.
Brian C. (a minor) v. Contra Costa Health Services involved one of the bigger jury awards in Contra Costa recent history. The Honorable Steven Austin presided. Two Plaintiffs firms took the lead. Michael E. Gatto of Rains Lucia Stern, PC, was co-lead together with Eustace de Saint Phalle of the Veen Firm. Alison M. Karp of the Veen firm assisted the lead lawyers. W. David Walker of Craddick, Candland & Conti represented Defendants.
Factually, the case involved a medical malpractice claim involving alleged negligent management of a twin pregnancy, which resulted in the death of one twin and severe brain injury to the surviving twin. It was alleged Contra Costa County Health Services assigned a family practitioner to handle an extremely rare and high-risk pregnancy. The defendant doctor did not seek co-management with a specialist, nor did the doctor refer the mother out to a specialist. The doctor apparently failed to appreciate the risks associated with the pregnancy, failed to schedule a timely delivery and failed to properly respond to an obstetrical emergency.
After five years of litigation and a two-month trial, Plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence that the doctor engaged in a pattern of tampering with the medical records and provided arguably false testimony.
The pre-trial demand was $11.75 million. The mother’s claim had settled prior to trial for the MICRA limits of $250,000. At the mandatory settlement conference and after three failed mediations, the carrier offered $2.25 million. There were additional demands and offers during the trial.
The jury determined the surviving twin would live another 74 years, would never be employable and would require extensive future medical care for the rest of his life. The jury returned a verdict of $12,132,780.82 present value.
In an Alameda County Superior Court case entitled Francisco et al v. AC Transit et al, Case No. RG12617444, the jury awarded a woman and her daughter $15,313,703 for injuries incurred while they were passengers in an AC Transit bus.
The Honorable Gail Brewster Bereola presided at trial. Plaintiffs were represented at trial by Brian Panish, Spencer Lucas and Patrick Gunning of the Panish law firm. Plaintiffs were also represented by Ivan Golde. Defendants were represented by Shawn Tolliver and Dana Fox of Lewis Brisbois.
Maria Francisco, her daughter Mia and other family members were riding in an AC Transit bus. The bus went over a speed bump in a school zone at twice the legal speed limit. As a result, Francisco was thrown from her seat and suffered a severe traumatic burst fracture to her L1 vertebra. The driver allegedly verbally berated Francisco after the accident. It was all caught on tape. As a result of the injury, Francisco has undergone three spine surgeries and has been in chronic pain and unable to work since the incident.
The jury awarded Francisco $10 million in past and future pain and suffering, $3.385 million in past and future medicals, $800,266 for future loss of earnings and $127,472 for past family services. Daughter Mia was awarded $1 million for past and future emotional distress relating to her witnessing the incident. The Defendants pre-trial settlement offer was $2.75 million.
Interestingly enough in 2011, the Panish firm obtained a $10.5 million settlement against AC Transit in another bus accident case.
Another Contra Costa Superior Court civil jury verdict involved a case entitled Kelly v. Contra Costa Water District, Case No. C10-01388. The Honorable Laurel Brady presided at trial. Attorney Don Odell of Pleasanton represented Plaintiffs. Craig Judson and Sharon Nagle represented Defendant.
The case involved water leaks at a property in Pittsburg. Plaintiffs alleged the water district was responsible as it had a nearby pipeline. The water district admitted a small leak but was not responsible for damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Prior to trial, Plaintiffs demanded $3.2 million. Defendant offered $1 million by CCP 998. The jury returned a gross verdict of $414,000 which netted out to $331,200.
The Morrill Firm attorneys never fail to provide trial reports to me. Here are three bench trial reports:
The trial involved the claim by the surviving spouse seeking a determination that a premarital agreement was invalid and therefore the surviving spouse was entitled to at least 50 percent of the trust’s assets. The trustee filed a cross petition seeking that not only was the premarital agreement valid under California law, but the surviving spouse waived her right to inherit. The court determined the premarital agreement was valid and the surviving spouse had waived her right to inherit from the decedent.
In the Matter of the Emmett and Aralee Charlton Trust, Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. P13-01298, Judge John Sugiyama presided. Andy Verriere represented the trustee. Jonathan Le Duex and Lawrence Crocetti represented themselves. The trial involved an objection to accounting petition covering an 11-year period by trustee and petition to remove trustee. Following the trial, the court overruled the objection to the accounting petition, approved the petition and denied the petition to remove the trustee.
In the Matter of the Estate of James S. Brotherton, Contra Costa Superior Court case No. P13-00811, Judge John Sugiyama presided. Andy Verriere represented the personal representative. Diana Brotherton represented herself. The trial involved the objection to accounting petition. Following the trial, the court overruled the objection, and ordered Diana Brotherton to pay the estate $23,765.65 in attorney’s fees and costs.
It does seem quite a while since I penned a Bar Soap column for the Contra Costa Lawyer. Perhaps so, but here goes the latest … and actually, I did not “pen” this article. My kids give me a hard enough time with my electronic skills or lack thereof, so I want to make it clear: I use a computer.
I am a bit annoyed with a recent interview concerning a Coroner’s Inquest. In fact so annoyed, I penned a separate article (okay, I didn’t actually pen), on just the topic of Coroner’s Inquests.
As a longtime Coroner’s Inquest Hearing Officer, I do not normally give interviews concerning specific Inquests, and in fact when you read about a Coroner’s Inquest in the Contra Costa Times, the hearing officer’s name is never mentioned. And that is as it should be. So look for my separate article coming soon, and you will learn all about Coroner’s Inquests in Contra Costa County.
I recently went to trial in Contra Costa County. That is unusual for several reasons. The first of which is that although I am a Contra Costa lawyer, most of my cases are tried in other venues. Another reason is that not many civil cases actually get to verdict. You will have to read about the results in my latest “Civil Jury Verdicts” column.
The salient point being: Most often when a case goes to trial, one side or the other miscalculated. Very few cases in my view offer such novel issues that a jury must decide. Perhaps that is the reason so few civil cases go to verdict as compared to days gone by. The reasons are many, but suffice it to say, most lawyers have gotten that message.
The year 2015 greets us with a number of changes in our Contra Costa Superior Court Civil Bench. That is not to say that our judges who do criminal matters, probate matters, family law matters, juvenile matters, et al., are not civil. I am talking about the departments we at one time called “Fast Track” departments. Anyone wanting to use that term should sit in for a few trial setting conferences. Trials are regularly being set in the fall of 2016. Yes, 2016, not 2015.
But, I digress. Judge Jill Fannin is taking over the civil calendar from Judge Laurel Brady. So, we will once again have a Fannin in a civil trial department in Contra Costa. I only hope her taste in neck ties is different than her father’s. Rick Flier can weigh in on this issue if he likes.
Judge Barry Goode is headed back to the complex litigation department and Judge Judy Craddick is moving over the hallway to take over Judge Austin’s department, while Judge George Spanos remains in place in department 34 on the third floor.
Speaking of civil matters, I do have to chuckle once again at the whole Court Call “experiment.” So, why do some lawyers talk way too much, and a number not enough, when on Court Call? Often is heard the words by the court: “Hello, are you still there?”
The mind boggles at what may be going on behind the scenes. More often the responses are long, tedious and without a muzzle. I suppose if lawyers are in their kitchens, in their pajamas, with the news blasting in the background, they think they can talk on Court Call as if they are in their kitchens, in their pajamas, with the news blasting in the background. A little hint to all: State your appearance, say only what is needed to let the court know you have that new CMC date, then shut up.
Sadly, it seems I never fail to have to mention the passing of members of our local legal community. Some have thanked me for being the local legal obituary column. I don’t really mean to be that, but I do feel the need to mention the passings. I read about the death of Seymour Rose. Seymour was a real character for many years in our community. A UC Berkeley grad and a Boalt Hall grad, Seymour was admitted to the State Bar in 1955. How many of you can say you were even alive in the ‘50s?
Dean West Wright was also a UC Berkeley grad and a Boalt Hall grad. While he spent much of his legal career in an Oakland office, we certainly saw him in our local courts. Dean spent 55 years in the practice of law, and finally retired in 2004. That is a long time.
Although not lawyers, we lost several members of our local police department over the past few months. Fortunately, not in the actual line of duty. I worked very closely with Dan Lynch and Carlos Rose when I was a deputy district attorney. Dan was a Martinez police officer and most recently an inspector with the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office. Carlos was longtime Concord police officer. Both left us too soon.
Now onto more pleasant news of “People on the Move.” Sitting in one of our civil courtrooms recently I saw Jay Chafetz seated nearby, but not suited up in his usual attorney appearance attire. Turns out, Jay is now a research attorney with our Superior Court. In chatting I learned he was one of eight such research attorneys. Congratulations, Jay. Looks like no more client meetings and certainly no more monthly pre-bills. Oh the thought of it! I wonder if they have any openings?
Ralph Zappala is now at Busby & Zappala in Lafayette. Shortens up that commute, I bet. Ralph was a longtimer at Lewis Brisbois in the city. Congratulations, Ralph, on your new firm.
Read in the SF Business Times, my former colleague at Ropers Majeski, Jim Lassart, is now a shareholder at Murphy Pearson. He came over to Murphy Pearson a while back as Senior Trial Counsel. Saw that Dennis Strazulo and Maurice Fitzgerald have also made moves. Dennis and Maurice were also at Ropers when I was in the city. Maurice is now at the Cartright firm in San Francisco. And Dennis is the California managing partner of a big Atlanta firm. Sounds very nice for both of them. I should mention that the Bus Times also mentioned the addition of three new lawyers at Ropers Majeski.
Remember last time I asked for local lawyers to let me know if they had achieved “Super Lawyers” status? I heard from Ross Pytlik who was designated a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers. Congratulations, Ross. The only other person I heard from was me.
After the death of our good friend Mark Ericsson, I wondered what would happen at his firm. Well, wonder no more. Not letting any moss grow under his feet, Walt Youngman has hired Jean Claude Mallein Jr., and Tara Shine, as attorneys at the firm.
I saw a recent announcement that Mike Brown and Audrey Gee had celebrated two years at their firm Brown Church & Gee. Two years? It seems they just started that firm last week. Congratulations to them on the two-year anniversary.
Time to go. I am sure there is more to talk about. Keep those cards and letters coming or email me at mguichard@gtplawyers.com.
