O.C. v. House of Air
(San Francisco Superior Court, 2016)
Plaintiff was a minor who visited a trampoline park in San Francisco with her grandparents. While jumping on the trampoline, plaintiff broke her her ankle in a collision with another jumper. Her grandfather filed a personal injury lawsuit on her behalf, and her grandmother filed her own claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In addition to general and special damages, the plaintiffs pursued a claim for punitive damages, and also alleged gross negligence. After taking the depositions of both grandparents to confirm that they signed a written release agreement on behalf of the minor plaintiff, we filed a motion for summary judgment as to all causes of action asserted by both plaintiffs. The motion asserted conclusive defenses based upon both the written release and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. On February 29, 2016, we obtained summary judgment on all claims in favor of our client, House of Air, just as we had three years prior in a separate lawsuit. The plaintiff has appealed the summary judgment ruling, and our firm is handling the appeal.
Collins v. Salinan Heritage Preservation Ass’n., et al.
(San Luis Obispo Superior Court, 2016)
Our firm was hired to represent a Native American tribal organization, along with one of its members, in a defamation suit brought by a plaintiff who claims membership in a different tribe. The case arose out of a series of public disputes between the two tribes, including a dispute over rights to climb Morro Rock for ceremonial purposes. The plaintiff alleged that our clients, along with other tribe members, defamed him by calling his Native American ancestry into question. Working with counsel for the other defendants, we filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit at a preliminary phase under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16). A SLAPP motion, which stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” is available to dismiss lawsuits that involve matters of public concern, if it can be demonstrated to the court that the plaintiff does not have a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits. If a defendant prevails in such a motion, it not only results in a dismissal at a very early stage, but also allows the defendant to collect their attorney’s fees. On August 4, 2015, the Court granted the SLAPP motion in its entirety, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming our client’s right to collect attorney’s fees. A later motion regarding the fees due under the SLAPP statute resulted in an award of $56,000.00 in attorney’s fees and over $4,000.00 in costs. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit, and our firm has been retained to handle the appeal and to pursue additional attorney’s fees for the appellate work.
Tec v. Keilo
(San Francisco Superior Court, 2016)
Our firm was hired to defend a limousine service against a lawsuit alleging that a driver negligently ran a red light and struck a bicyclist in a crosswalk in downtown San Francisco. Among other injuries, the plaintiff alleged a serious head trauma with ongoing neurological problems, along with post-concussive syndrome and loss of his sense of smell. He also had large facial lacerations. Plaintiff alleged that a resulting sensitivity to heat would prevent him from performing his job as a chef. The damages for medical treatment and lost income approached $100,000.00 and the lawsuit had a potential value of $300,000.00 to $500,000.00. Our firm worked for a year to track down three independent witnesses who had been avoiding service of subpoenas. We were able to locate all three and obtain statements from them confirming that our client had a green light at the time of the accident. The case settled prior to trial for $5,000.00.
Greenbaum v. Miller
(Contra Costa County Superior Court)
This was a dog bite case wherein the plaintiff suffered significant injuries as a result of being attacked by a 125-pound pit-bull mix. The complaint sought punitive and compensatory damages against our client in excess of $100,000. Our client was the target defendant as she was the only one with insurance. We were successful in having our client dismissed from the lawsuit by summary judgment.
Morgan v. Ace Lighters
(Marin County Superior Court)
This was a product defect case. The plaintiff was severely burned as a result of using an allegedly defective lighter. Her medical bills were in excess of $350,000 and she was left with significant facial, head and neck scarring. She will have a lifetime of pain and disfigurement. We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our client, Ace Lighters, Inc. who manufactured the lighter which plaintiff was using when she was injured.
Nasledov v. House of Air
(San Francisco Superior Court)
Nasledov involved a plaintiff who suffered a compound fracture of his tibia and fibula bones while jumping at a trampoline park in San Francisco. The case was assigned to us at the end of September 2013. In January of 2014 we filed a motion for summary judgment on eight causes of action, including product defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, etc. The plaintiff’s medical bills exceeded $100,000 and he had ongoing complaints due to the leg fractures and permanent hardware in his leg. On April 7, we obtained a summary judgment order in favor of our client, House of Air. The summary judgment completely disposed of the case in favor of House of Air. This case is made more important by the fact that it will lead to the dismissal of several other cases against our client.
Dimas v. Ramos
(Alameda County Superior Court)
Dimas was a slip and fall matter with a fractured ankle. The medical bills totaled more than $76,000 in addition to a wage loss claim. In the plaintiff’s deposition we were able to demonstrate that he lied about how the accident occurred. We also tracked down plaintiff’s ex wife and were able to obtain damning text messages from her phone. Shortly after his deposition was completed, the plaintiff’s attorney contacted us and confirmed he was dismissing the lawsuit. The dismissal was filed shortly thereafter.
Fernandez v. La Via Axul Properties
(Monterey County Superior Court)
This case was a very serious landlord tenant case, with personal injuries alleged as a result of various alleged breaches of the warranty of habitability. We served plaintiff with continual discovery requests, and were tenacious regarding following up with motions to compel for statutory failures regarding the responses. After multiple victories on these discovery motions, the Court granted our request that the case be dismissed in its entirety for repeated violations of the discovery act.