Notable Results

50+ Years Practicing Law

250+ Verdicts & Settlements each in excess of $1,000,000

Notable Cases


Pharmaceutical Liability

For a settlement for 190 plaintiffs across the country who took a drug and developed unwarned side effects for which there was no adequate warning.


Premises Liability

A settlement for a high school senior who sustained brain damage when he fell at school and struck his head.


Faulty Construction

This is a series of a dozen lawsuits naming approximately 350 plaintiff entities, including property owners, business owners, and tenants who suffered damages caused by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as a result of the subway construction.  Total settlements were in excess of $7,500,000.


Discrimination & Retaliation

An officer who was a member of the Anaheim Police Department for over 25 years was purposefully denied for promotion.  After filing a complaint, the department reassigned the officer and gave him a reduced workload.  Jury returned a verdict for $215,000 in economic damages and $5,000,000 in non-economic damages.


Sexual Assault

Twenty-two children from sixteen families filed an action against a nursery school in Los Angeles.  Approximately one-half of the children had been sexually victimized by the taking of inappropriate photographs.  The case was settled for just under $4,000,000.


Personal Injury

This civil action arose out of a collision of a truck and a bus on Interstate 5 in the Newhall area.  Plaintiff endured a series of epidural injections in the neck and back and ultimately underwent two spinal surgeries.  The case was settled for $2,750,000.


Pharmaceutical Liability

A jury verdict in federal court against a drug company who failed to identify potential deleterious side effects for a well marketed drug.


Personal Injury

Case against the State of California for dangerous conditions of public property which resulted in a death of a driver.  The case resulted in a settlement for the family of the deceased.


Negligent Security

Settlement based on a lack of adequate security of a management company for the family of a man who died following an altercation outside a casino.


Working Environment

This case involved the representation of forty-seven employees in a lawsuit alleging various degrees of personal injuries against the studios that processed film stock for the movie industry as well as the manufacturers and suppliers of the chemicals used in the process.  The lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court settled for an amount over $1,700,000.


Employment Discrimination

Verdict with attorneys fees for a police officer who was the subject of discrimination as others in the department believed he was gay.


Gender Discrimination

Plaintiff was a 30-year employee whose job duties grew from secretary to assistant vice-president.  In a reorganization of the company, plaintiff’s job responsibilities were limited and new compensation plan removed plaintiff’s bonus plan.  This new policy affected primarily one class of workers who were females over 40.  Jury returned a verdict of $1,000,000.


Medical Negligence

This case involved the wrongful death of a husband and father of three children following spinal surgery.  The jury verdict is one of the largest medical negligence verdicts in the Van Nuys District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Notable Appellate Decisions

Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
107 Cal.App 4th 848

The court found that where there was a continuous and repeated course of conduct causing damages to property and the property had not stabilized, then the statute of limitations does not commence to run.

Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation
924 F.Supp.2d 1099

The consequence is that for the Ninth Circuit this opinion clarified the standard for a medical practitioner and eliminated the argument that the defense raises whenever a treating physician is called upon to render an opinion as to causation.

Cordova v. City of Los Angeles
61 Cal.4th 1099

The court identified the standard of causation in a dangerous condition of a public property case finding that the test was whether the condition that created a substantial risk of injury to the public caused the injury.  The court clarified that nothing in the statutory scheme required the plaintiff to show the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the third-party conduct that precipitated the accident.