Appellate Practice - Recent Successes

Arbitration

• Ourfali v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (B324150, Mar. 27, 2024) [nonpub. opn.] (Arbitration: Court affirmed order granting defendant’s petition to vacate award of costs of proof, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction based on the language of the arbitration clause in appellant’s insurance policy.)Lillie v. Channel View Condominium Assn. (Dec. 9, 2022, B316761) (California: Court affirmed trial court’s order denying plaintiffs’ petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award in favor of defendant because plaintiffs did not timely file their petition.)
• Gordon v. Atria Management Co, LLC (Oct. 1, 2021, A161379) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed an order denying defendants’ petition to compel arbitration because plaintiff’s son held a valid durable power of attorney that empowered him to sign the arbitration agreement on her behalf and the decision to enter into the arbitration agreement did not constitute a healthcare decision.)
• Caballero v. Premier Care Simi Valley LLC dba Simi Valley Care Center (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 512 (California: Court reversed an order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration because although plaintiff argued he did not sufficiently understand English, there was no evidence plaintiff communicated his inability to read the arbitration agreement before signing it.)
• Western Bagel Company, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 649 (California: Court reversed the order denying defendant’s petition for binding arbitration and ordering the parties to nonbinding arbitration as contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act.)
   

Administrative Law

• Petitioner v. Medical Board of California (July 10, 2013, Sacramento Superior Court) (California: Court granted a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in an action against the Medical Board of California directing the Medical Board to vacate its decision imposing discipline on petitioner’s license, and remanding the matter for a new evidentiary hearing before a different Administrative Law Judge.)
• Baxter v. Riverside Community College District (Apr. 3, 2012, E052406) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Petition granting reinstatement to plaintiff’s teaching position reversed.)

Anti-SLAPP Cases

• Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2022) 318 Or. App. 313 (Oregon: Court reversed trial court’s order denying defendants’ special motion to strike and remanded for entry of judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim because plaintiff did not meet his burden to present prima facie evidence defendants lacked probable cause to name plaintiff in the underlying action.)
• Santy v. Banafsheha (June 30, 2021, B302388) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed the order denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion holding allegations arose from protected activity and plaintiff could not establish a probability of prevailing on her claim because defendants’ petition was privileged.)
• Baisden v. Bowers (F076662, Nov. 21, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in an action arising out of complaint filed with the California Board of Accountancy.)
• Hagenbuch v. Steel (D073394, July 30, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery and continuance rulings in an anti-SLAPP proceeding.)
• Chavez v. Rady Children’s Hospital (D072612, Dec. 4, 2018) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in an action arising out of a report to police of suspected child abuse and neglect.)
• Aron v. WIB Holdings (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1069 (California: Court reversed grant of a new trial motion after an anti-SLAPP motion had been granted in a lawsuit stemming from a dispute between a landlord and tenant.)
• Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP et al. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 95 (California: Court affirmed trial court’s order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in action alleging conversion and fraudulent transfer.)
• Midwest REM Enterprises, Inc. v. Noonan (2015) 42 N.E.3d 46 (Illinois: Court affirmed summary judgment and grant of dismissal under Illinois Anti-SLAPP Act dismissing a multi-million dollar claim of fraud, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and tortious interference with business relationships since no reasonable person could have determined that our client committed any fraud or misrepresentation.)
• Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333 (California: Court reversed trial court order denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion since plaintiff’s defamation and IIED causes of action arose out of protected activity and plaintiff did not establish a probability of prevailing on his claims.)
• Nishida v. Dumas (June 30, 2015, B250957) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed order denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in plaintiff’s malicious prosecution action.)
• Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 793 (California: Court affirmed order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiff’s allegation that lawyers engaged in illegal conduct when they solicited and received confidential information from plaintiff’s former attorney fell within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute and plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing.)
• Pasternack v. McCullough (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1347 (California: court affirmed order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in plaintiff’s action for malicious prosecution against an attorney and his law firm.)
• Millar v. Fogh (Apr. 9, 2013, B238022) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeal reversed an order denying our anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case based on the lack of favorable termination of the underlying employment case. The trial court then granted our motion for attorney’s fees incurred in both the trial court and the Court of Appeal.)
• Rader v. Brady (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697 (California: Court affirmed order striking section 1983 claim under the anti-SLAPP statute in case involving a report of child abuse.)

Appellate Procedure/Discovery Issues

• Ash v. Grace Greens #1 Homeoners Assn. (Jan 30, 2024, B321980) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed appellant’s appeal because the motion she appealed from was not appealable.)
• Drooyan v. Action Property Management Co., Inc. (Nov. 30, 2023, B314211) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff did not file a timely appeal from the attorney’s fee order.)
• Bittenson v. Bittenson (July 19, 2023, B320303) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal after trial court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to bring the action to trial within five years after it was filed.)
• Black v. High Desert Medical Group (July 19, 2022, B300957) [nonpub. opn.] (California: plaintiff forfeited his claims on appeal because he made no cogent argument, with citation to legal authority and application of the facts, to support his contention that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying his motion for relief from dismissal.)
• Emily V. v. Team Health, LLC (Apr. 22, 2022, A162455) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed appellant’s late appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction.)
• Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks CCRC LLC (Mar. 21, 2022, B311972) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed plaintiff’s appeal because the interlocutory order denying costs and attorney’s fees without prejudice was not appealable.)
• Nguyen v. Alphabet Inc. (Mar. 7, 2022, H047123) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment following order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend where defense counsel sufficiently met and conferred prior to filing the demurrer.)
• In re LCS SP, LLC (Tex. Feb. 25, 2022, No. 20-0694)  ___ (Texas: Court erred in requiring the trial court to compel production of a nursing home's operating policies and procedures before the plaintiff served his expert report because a facility's general policies and procedures fall outside the narrow scope of pre-report discovery permitted in medical-liability cases.)
• Wright v. Kaiser Permanent Medical Center (Mar. 23, 2020, A157091) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal of plaintiff’s case for failure to effect timely service of process because plaintiff did not meet his burden of affirmatively demonstrating prejudicial error based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to an adequate record.)
• Johnson v. Struiksma (Feb. 5, 2020, B290273) [nonpub. opn.) (Appellate Procedure: Court dismissed appeal from order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failing to serve summons within three years after filing her complaint because the appeal was untimely and also affirmed court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal.)
• Morris-Calderon v. The James Randi Educational Foundation (Jan. 13, 2020, B290811) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend because plaintiff’s briefs on appeal did not present a comprehensible argument.)
• Green v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (H044624, Dec. 6, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal following trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.)
• Division Six Sports, Inc. v. Target Corp. (B285698, Sept. 27, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint because plaintiff abandoned its cause of action for intentional interference with contract leaving nothing to review on appeal and could not file a completely different complaint for the first time on appeal.)
• Junaid v. Rady Children’s Hospital (D072767, Sept. 19, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s appeal in an employment action because plaintiff failed to provide a full and complete appellate record, citations to the record and legal authority and analysis.)
• Mitchell Anthony Productions, LLC (B284244, Sept. 9, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s first lawsuit barred the second lawsuit.)
• Robinson v. Public Storage (May 6, 2019, H045607) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal because the court’s order granting a motion to vacate a default is not an appealable order.)
• Cortinas v. Portillo (Oct. 31, 2018, No. 15-1717) [nonpub. opn.] (9th Circuit: Court affirmed district court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies according to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and affirmed the court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion for discovery and motion to continue his evidentiary hearing.)
• Jean v. Chinitz, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 5473 (1st Dept. 2018) (New York: Court affirmed order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.)
• Romine v. Big O Tires Corporate Headquarters (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2017, No. 16-15218) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.)
• R. Prasad Industries v. Douglas (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2016, No. 14-17088) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order imposing sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel.)
• Stiglmier v. Santa Barbara Community College District (B261296, Nov. 16, 2016) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed appeal in a student’s suit alleging his personal information was improperly shared because the plaintiff did not timely file his appeal.)
• Top Shelf Manufacturing, LLC v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (A148953, Nov. 3, 2016) (California: Court issued an alternative writ of mandate in a case in which a motion to disqualify a law firm from representing two defendants had been granted.)
• Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2016, No. 13-17390) [nonpub. opn.] (Nevada: Court affirmed dismissal of non-diverse defendants upon a finding of fraudulent joinder.)
• Bolton v. Heely-Brown (11th Cir., Jan. 25, 2016, No. 1:14-cv-00559-TCB) (11th Cir.: Court affirmed district court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failure to obey a court order.)
• Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363 (California: Court reversed judgment of dismissal after the trial court dismissed the case based upon forum non conveniens.)
• Price v. Los Angeles County (9th Cir. 2015) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for new trial and motion to re-tax costs because plaintiff did not show that the court abused its discretion in denying his untimely new trial motion.)
• Burke v. The Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills (Apr. 15, 2014, B245467) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the summary judgment hearing should have been continued because plaintiff was dilatory in retaining an expert witnesses and new counsel.)
• Williams v. Shiva Ambulette Serv. Inc., 2013 NY Slip Opn. 432 (1st Dept. 2013) (New York: Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to provide court-ordered disclosure of medical information.)
• Transport Indemnity Company v. TIG Insurance Company (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 984 (California: Comprehensive decision of the Court of Appeal reviewing and clarifying the doctrine of invited error.)
• Del Rosa Villa, LLC et al. v. The Superior Court; Heather MacPherson et al. (Nov. 17, 2011, E054583) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to set aside its order granting discovery of financial information.)

Attorney’s Fees/CCP 998

• Pasternack v. McCullough (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1050 (California: Court affirmed trial court’s attorney’s fee order issued after defendant’s prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion; court concluded the trial court properly determined the reasonable market value of the attorneys' services.)
• Lerdahl v. Milber (June 22, 2021, A159167) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court order denying plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and request for expert witness fees because plaintiffs did not prove defendants were liable for financial abuse.)
• Linton v. County of Contra Costa (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 628 (California: Court affirmed order denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees after defendants’ accepted her offer to compromise under CCP 998 because no such fees were allowed by law.)
• Jones v. Bradshaw Bar Group, Inc., et al. (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2017, No. 15-17512) [nonpub. opn.] (California: District court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for attorneys’ fees as untimely because consent decree was a final judgment triggering the deadline for motion.)
• Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG, 821 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016) (9th Circuit: Court reversed trial court’s order awarding plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.)

Business/Unfair Competition

• Callais Capital Mgmt. v. Wilhite (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022 No. 21-30222) [nonpub. opn.] (Fifth Circuit: Court affirmed the grant of two orders dismissing all causes of action against defendants who had been sued in securities fraud lawsuit.)
• Farina v. Savwcl III, LLC (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 286 (California: Court affirmed trial court order granting defendants’ motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction because defendants did not have the minimum contacts with California necessary to support jurisdiction.)
• Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc. (9th Cir. 2019) 934 F.3d 1093 (California: Ninth Circuit affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against the operator of a website that allegedly facilitated illegal drug sales concerning its roll in the death of plaintiff’s son because the operator was entitled to immunity from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.)
• Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Southern SARMs, Inc. (Nov. 28, 2017, B278132) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed dismissal of unfair competition and false advertising suit for failure to state a cause of action.)

Class Actions

• Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2020) 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Circuit: Court held that the Class Action Fairness Act may not be used to evade the specific numerosity requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.)
• Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1407 (U.S. Supreme Court reversed order granting class arbitration and held that courts may not compel classwide arbitration based on an arbitration agreement that is ambiguous whether the parties agreed to arbitrate on a class basis.)
• Bae v. BMW of North America, LLC (Aug. 19, 2015, G049547) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal concluding that a class action settlement barred plaintiff’s claims.)

Commercial Lease

• Sylvan Hospitality Group, Inc. v. St. Giles Hotel, LLC (No. 2023-00053, Jan. 30, 2024) (New York: Court affirmed order granting defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice of pendency and dismissing several of plaintiff’s causes of action and holding that a lease is personalty such that a tenant cannot file a notice of pendency.)Ensemble Real Estate Services, Inc. v. San Antonio Community Hospital (E069714, Nov. 19, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of defendants and held that the trial court did not err in interpreting an indemnity provision in a lease.)
• R City v. Security Building Loft Partners (Apr. 25, 2014, B246119) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of defendants based on the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication on plaintiff’s claims for intentional and negligent interference with economic relations and a directed verdict against plaintiff on its remaining claims for conversion, theft, and negligence.)

Contract/Settlement Agreements

• Fei Enterprises, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. (Jan. 25, 2024, B323740) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant.)
• Mansour v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (Nov. 16, 2021, B298538) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order denying motion to compel satisfaction of judgment despite ambiguous underlying forms and contracts because judgment debtor failed to carry burden of proof that judgment was satisfied in full.)
• Feldman v. Scepter Group, Pte. Ltd. (No. 2019-2829, 1st Dept. July 9, 2020) (New York: Court reversed a judgment entered against the principal of a company who signed a settlement agreement on behalf of that company and was erroneously held personally liable for the breach.)
• Masada v. Almaden Tower Venture LLC (Apr. 10, 2020, H042584) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal entered following trial court's grant of defendants' motions for nonsuit in plaintiff's breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of fitness for a particular purpose and negligence action.)
• Cargotec Corp. v. Logan Industries (No. 14-17-00213-CV, Dec. 20, 2018) (Texas: Court reversed judgment on a jury verdict against defendant and rendered judgment for defendant in plaintiff’s action alleging breach of contract and fraud claims against defendant because plaintiff presented legally insufficient evidence to support the damages findings.)
• First American Title Insurance Co. v. Branyan (Feb. 17, 2016, G049701) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment after bench trial where the trial court found in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.)
• Oliphant v. Shah (May 26, 2015, G050693) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation causes of action.)
• Bieler v. HP Locate, LLC (Jan. 15, 2015, No. 14-10632) [nonpub. opn.] (Fifth Circuit: Court affirmed district court judgment in favor of defendant against multiple debtors in a commercial collection case.)
• Martinez-Luna v. TCI International, Inc. (Nov. 20, 2014, D064081) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in defendant’s favor on plaintiff’s breach of oral contract cause of action because the undisputed evidence established that the parties did not enter into a sufficiently definite and certain agreement.)
• Gidding v. Salama (June 10, 2014, A136071) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for reconsideration to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement because the settlement agreement unambiguously demonstrated the parties’ intention that only the signatures of the settling parties, and not their attorneys, were required for the agreement to be enforceable.)
• Morris Company v. Boman (Dec. 18, 2013, E055795) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant because plaintiff did not establish a disputed issue of fact concerning the required criteria for establishing economic duress.)
• Bergeron v. Payne (July 25, 2013, D060553) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order granting defendant’s motion for new trial in plaintiff’s breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relationship action based upon defendant’s alleged unreasonable refusal to consent to the assignment of a lease. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial on all issues instead of a new trial on the issues of damages only.)
• Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Bondwriter Southwest, Inc., 228 Ariz. 84, 263 P. 3d 633 (2011) (Arizona: Damages from Bondwriter’s breach may not be allocated according to comparative fault statutes.)
• Matter of Calvaruso v. Hunter Ambulette-Ambulance, Inc., 89 A.D. 3d 841, 932 N.Y.S. 2d 346 (2d Dept. 2011) (New York: Validity of general release and rejecting claim that release was fraudulently obtained.)
• Innovative Business Partnerships, Inc. v. Inland Counties Regional Center, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 623 (California: Summary judgment partially reversed based on Lanterman Disabilities Services Act for transportation services contract for disabled persons and summary adjudication of defamation cause of action affirmed.)

Elder Law/Healthcare/Medical Malpractice

• Gavert v. CF Modesto, LLC (Feb. 6, 2024, F084515) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court vacated trial court’s order denying defendants’ petition to compel arbitration.)
• Pietroforte v. Belle Harbor Home of the Sages, Inc., 220 A.D.3d 628 (1st Dept. 2023) (New York: affirming summary judgment dismissal of action against psychiatrist based on evidence that doctor-patient relationship was severed before patient’s fall from window)
• Shankar v. Mepoint Management, Inc. (Jan. 30, 2023, B309862) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff  causes of action for breach of contract and violation of the UCL without leave to amend, and to the class action allegations related to plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and IIED.)
• Curtis v. Palomar Health (Jan. 17, 2023, D079266) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred because plaintiffs did not comply with time requirements of the Government Claims Act.)
• Valero v. Spread Your Wings, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 243 (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal in malicious prosecution action because Welfare and Institutions Code section 15634, subdivision (a) provided absolute immunity from civil and criminal liability to mandatory reporters under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.)
• Affiliated Temporary Help v. CTK North American, LLC (Aug. 16, 2022, B308558) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed demurrer sustained without leave to amend where plaintiff could not state sufficient facts to support causes of action for financial elder abuse and unfair competition arising out of alleged unlicensed sale of insurance.)
• Harsini v. Lamm (May 12, 2022, B313547) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in wrongful death action based on professional negligence because plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of material fact that defendant violated the standard of care.)
• Flores v. Meallet (Mar. 11, 2022, B304139) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s case because plaintiff did not introduce any expert opinion testimony at trial and failed to designate an expert in compliance with the discovery procedures.)
• Melton v. CHA Health Systems, Inc. (July 28, 2021, B302521) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants where plaintiff entered into stipulation fatal to survival causes of action and could not plead a claim for elder abuse because conditions precedent to decedent’s advanced healthcare directive were not satisfied and decedent retained decision-making authority as to whether to end his life.)
• Kittel v. Advantage Physical Therapy (Jan 15, 2021, 9th Cir. No. 19-55690) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff failed to articulate why the proposed amendments could not have been incorporated into prior iterations of her complaint.)
• Rogers v. Ridgecrest Regional Hospital (Dec. 19, 2019, F076751) (California: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend because the report made by hospital staff to the police department fell within the absolute privilege contained in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b).)
• Eberhardt v. Providence Health & Services – Oregon (2019) 298 Ore. App. 454 (Oregon: Court affirmed summary judgment and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the complaint with prejudice after granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the ground that the patient failed to submit an affidavit from an expert who was available and willing to testify that the doctor’s conduct failed to meet the standard of care.)
• O.D. v. Jones Lang LaSalle Med. PPO Plus Plan (11th Cir., No. 17-13060, May 15, 2019) 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 14385 (11th Circuit: Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment holding that defendant’s denial of benefits was proper and not arbitrary or capricious.)
• Ford v. Community Memorial Hospital (July 30, 2018, B279918) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant hospital because there was no triable issue of material fact as to the breach of duty element of negligence.)
• Williams v. Atria Las Posas (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1048 (California: Court reversed order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration because an integration clause in the admissions agreement did not preclude proof of the arbitration agreement.)
• Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1034 (California: Court affirmed JNOV in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ elder abuse cause of action because there was no substantial evidence that defendants acted recklessly.)
• Hopebridge Hospital Houston, L.L.C. v. Lerma (May 16, 2017, No. 14-16-00849-CV) [nonpub. opn.] (Texas: Court reversed trial court and dismissed plaintiff’s claims for failure to serve an expert report.)
• Udi v. Fein (Aug. 21, 2014, B249321) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed appeal as untimely and affirmed grant of summary judgment because plaintiff failed to present expert testimony refuting defendant’s evidence that it complied with the standard of care.)
• Bode v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital (Aug. 20, 2014, B244502) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed judgment in favor of plaintiff and remanded for a proper determination of the issue of the Hospital’s immunity under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. Further, summary adjudication should have been granted in favor of the Hospital on the issue of immunity under Civil Code section 43.97, which precludes liability for damages other than economic and pecuniary damages.)
• Moore v. Lakewood Park Manor, et al. (May 30, 2013, B238702) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed dismissal of elder abuse and willful misconduct causes of action against a residential care facility for the elderly finding that the conduct alleged did not amount to a conscious disregard of the resident’s needs.)
• Perez v. Nidek Co., 711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (Ninth Circuit: Court affirmed dismissal of claims holding that a physician’s “off-label” use of a medical product without disclosing that the FDA had not yet approved the use does not violate California’s Medical Experimentation Act or constitute fraud by omission. The court held that at “off-label” use of a medical product is not a medical experiment if it is reasonably related to improving health. Additionally, the court held that fraud by omission claims are preempted by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.)
• Pinkney v. Lighthouse Health Center (Dec. 11, 2012, B231630) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Summary judgment affirmed in full in an elder abuse and wrongful death case.)
• Sherman v. New Vista Health Services (Nov. 16, 2011, B236779) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Alternative writ issued following denial of unopposed good faith settlement motion in elder abuse case. Trial court complied with alternative writ leading to favorable resolution of case for client.)

Employment

• Sutton v. Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. (Apr. 27, 2023, F083396) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that the trial court did not err in determining plaintiff was statutorily barred based on workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine from bringing tort action against defendant.)
• Taylor v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 966 (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of employer where individuals formerly conducting bail fugitive recovery were not employees as a matter of law.)
• Lares v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (B293850, Sep. 29, 2020) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order granting summary judgment for employer on plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on use of California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave, failure to prevent retaliation and interference with CFRA leave.)  
• Conyer v. Hula Media Industries (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1189 (California: Court reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration and held that the employer had no duty to call the arbitration agreement to the employee’s attention.)
• Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 532 (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of staffing companies on discrimination and sexual harassment claims alleging failure to promote because the staffing companies were entirely uninvolved with the promotion decisions.)
• Lay v. Spring Valley Post Acute, LLC (Jan. 10, 2020, E071125) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court determined the trial court’s interpretation of the defendant employer’s arbitration agreement was incorrect and reversed trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration.)
• Brock v. Price (2019) 2019 ND 240, 934 N.W.2d 5 (North Dakota: district court did not err in dismissing an employee’s negligence action as a matter of law because an employer and a coworker were immune from suit under the Workforce Safety and Insurance Act’s exclusive remedy provisions.)
• Song v. Inland Medical Enterprises, Inc. (B2841014, Dec. 14, 2018) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed dismissal of arbitration proceedings in a wrongful termination case.)
• Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions, LLC (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 487 (California: court affirmed summary judgment in favor of employer because the plaintiff failed to show the employer was liable based on respondeat superior.)
• J.K. Residential Services Inc. v. Superior Court (Apr. 14, 2016, B243539) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed trial court order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration agreement because arbitration agreements were not unconscionable.)
• Eagle v. Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc. (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2015, No. 13-16879) [nonpub. opn.] (9th Circuit: Court affirmed summary judgment since plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on the issue of prextext on his age discrimination claim.)
• Gonzalez v. Mission Neighborhood Health Center (July 22, 2015, A140075) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in defendant’s favor on plaintiff’s wrongful termination, age and disability discrimination, family-leave retaliation and breach of contract claims.)
• Breitung v. State of Washington (Sept. 3, 2014, No. 45123-9-II) [nonpub. opn.] (Washington: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims.)
• Decambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1 (California: court affirmed grant of anti-SLAPP motion as to plaintiff’s retaliation, racial discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination and wrongful termination causes of action.)
• Ling v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2015) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment because plaintiff failed to present evidence that exempting her from the lottery for the affordable units was necessary to give her an equal opportunity to rent an affordable unit.)
• Lobo v. Tamco (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 438 (California: Employee was not acting in the course and scope of his employment when he struck the plaintiff with his car and the required-vehicle exception did not apply.)
• Eubanks v. Brown (Wash. 2014) 327 P.3d 635 (Washington: Supreme Court held the proper venue for a sexual harassment lawsuit implicating a deputy prosecuting attorney was in a neighboring county rather than in the county where the acts occurred because the acts alleged in the complaint were not done “in virtue of” the deputy prosecutor’s public office.)
• Cunningham v. Rady Children’s Physician Management Services, Inc. (Sept. 11, 2013, D060820) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment since plaintiff was an at-will employee who could be terminated at any time without cause and workers’ compensation provided the exclusive remedy for plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress.)
• Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (July 16, 2013, B249667) (California: Alternative writ issued regarding order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents that sought confidential and private information including Human Resources investigations containing employee personnel information and discipline of third party employees. Trial court complied with the writ and vacated the order.)
• Hall v. Goodwill Industries (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 718 (California: FEHA action dismissed under the one-year statute of limitations because the statute began to run as of the date of the right-to-sue notice issued to the employee. Nothing in the statute suggests the legislature intended “from the date of that notice” to mean from the date of receipt of the notice.)
• Ortega v. Rady Children’s Hospital (Apr. 18, 2011, D056282) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed summary judgment of hospital employee’s allegations of disability discrimination and wrongful termination.)
• Horvath v. L&B Gardens, Inc., 89 A.D. 3d 803, 932 N.Y.S. 2d 184 (2d Dept. 2011) (New York: Summary judgment affirmed for restaurant based on scope of employment standard where plaintiff’s assailants were acting outside scope during altercation.)

Family Law

• Bryan v. Bryan (E067126, Aug. 19, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court agreed with defendant in its cross-appeal that the trial court erred in its sanctions order and otherwise affirmed the judgment on reserved issues.)
• In re: M.B. (No. 29180, Aug. 7, 2019) 2019-Ohio-3166 (Ohio: court reversed trial court’s denial of a father’s parental rights and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion and acted against the manifest weight of the evidence when it refused to include parental alienation in the case plan.)
• In re Marriage of G.C. & R.W. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1 (California: Trial court properly determined the parties’ date of union was in 2009 because the parties’ 2004 New Jersey domestic partnership was not substantially equivalent to a California domestic partnership under Family Code section 299.2.)
• In re Marriage of Byerley (Wash. 2014) 334 P.3d 108 (Washington: Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s property distribution in a dissolution proceeding holding that the trial court’s characterization of the client’s house was erroneous, since the client acquired it before his relationship with his wife began and the separate character of the house remained intact throughout their relationship and subsequent marriage.)

General Liability

• Morgenthaler v. Pacific World Corp. (Jan. 30, 2024, B321975) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment entered after trial court granted motion for summary judgment filed by defendants.)
• Mackay v. Desert Hot Springs Real Properties, Inc. (Aug. 4, 2023, E079157) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.) 
• Cappello v. Rest. Depot, LLC 89 F.4th 238 (1st Cir. 2023) (New Hampshire: Court affirmed district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the exercise of personal jurisdiction over each of the defendants failed to satisfy a required element of the due process analysis.)
• Miller v. Roseville Lodge No. 1293 (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 825 (California: Court affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the Privette doctrine provided a complete defense to the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and his derivative claim for respondeat superior.)
• Wieder v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2022) 208 A.D.3d 535 (New York: Court remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to reduce the verdict.)
• Cardenas v. Horizon Senior Living (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1065 (California: Court affirmed the judgment of dismissal following the demurrer entered in favor of defendant because the extended statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.3 in which to bring an action for personal injury or wrongful death against the person convicted of that felony does not apply to the employer of the felon in an action based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.)
• Bacoka v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. (2021) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2021 Cal.App.Lexis 913] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in defendant’s favor because the undisputed evidence established the product was installed by an independent contractor and not defendant’s employees.)
• Mezger v. Bick, Jr., et al. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 76 (California: Court affirmed summary adjudication in defendants favor of plaintiff’s privacy claims where recording of plaintiff’s backyard by iPhone and Nest security cameras constituted an insubstantial privacy intrusion.) 
• Arvinites-Crook v. Greg Michaels, LLC (June 25, 2021, B303928) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants where alleged sexual assault of spa patron by janitor was outside scope of employee’s employment.)
• Robinson v. Kong (Mar. 12, 2021, C083719) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court dismissed plaintiff’s appeal from order denying her motion presumably brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (a), and 1008, subdivision (b), as no appealable order existed.)
• Norris v. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. (Jan. 22, 2021, E073981) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendants arising out of plaintiff’s claim for premises liability where displacement between asphalt and gutter was trivial.)
• Lozano v. Palm Communities (Dec. 17, 2020, E073245) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed the judgments of dismissal in favor of defendants where plaintiff’s claims for premises liability and negligence were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.)
• Sherwood v. Otto Jazz, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 04801 (2d Dept. Aug. 26, 2020) (New York: Court reversed jury’s $6.2 million verdict in a Dram Shop case and concluded that there was no evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the insured restaurant violated the Dram Shop Act by selling alcohol to a “visibly intoxicated” patron.)
• Anderson v. Flager Dialysis, LLC (June 9, 2020, E071706) [nonpub. opn.] (General Liability: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend on plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander and libel causes of action.)
• Madadian v. Maserati North America, Inc. (May 26, 2020, B293688) [nonpub. opn.] (General Liability: Court held that defendant was not required to pay the purchase price of plaintiff’s car as part of plaintiff’s actual damages.)
• Strojnik v. Pasadena Robles Acquisition, LLC dba Hilton Pasadena (Apr. 15, 2020, 9th Cir. No. 19-56037) [nonpub. opn.] (9th Circuit: Court affirmed judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act on grounds of standing because plaintiff failed to demonstrate an intent to return to defendant’s hotel or that he was deterred from visiting defendant’s hotel.)
• A Plus Fabrics Inc. v. Yates & Associates Ins. Services, Inc. (Feb. 26, 2020, B288389) [nonpub. opn.) (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant finding that the undisputed facts established that defendant, a surplus lines broker, did not make a representation to plaintiff’s insurance broker on which plaintiff’s relied and plaintiff’s insurance broker was not an agent of defendant.)
• Santiago v. Lakeland Drag Strip, Inc. (Dec. 18, 2019, No. 2D17-4347) (Florida: Court affirmed judgment defense summary judgment and denial of leave to amend in a negligence action.)
• Little v. Jim-Lar Corp. (A19A1169, Oct. 30, 2019) 2019 Ga. App. Lexis 636 (Georgia: Court affirmed summary judgment in a negligence case in which plaintiff alleged that she ordered an apple pie from a restaurant, but was served a peach pie instead and suffered a severe allergic reaction because plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that there was a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of breach of duty.)
• Christophel v. New York-Presbyterian/Weil Med. Coll. of Cornell Univ. Anesthesiology Residency Training Program (2019) 171 A.D.3d 611 (New York: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of our client in a wrongful death matter.)
• Golin v. San Andrea Regional Center (Mar. 26, 2019, A145752) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of defendant after a three-week jury trial in plaintiffs’ action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.)
• Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Gibbins) (B295133, Mar. 21, 2019) (California: Court issued an alternative writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its denial of defendant’s motion to quash service of summons in an asbestos case because service on a subsidiary was improper.)
• Holcomb v. American Valet Medical Transport, LLC (No. 1 CA-CV 16-0406, Nov. 16, 2018) (Arizona: Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment that found shuttle service did not owe a duty to injured passengers to install seatbelts in its transport vans where statutes and regulations did not mandate seatbelts. Appellants sought review from the Arizona Supreme Court, which denied review.)
• Spencer v. Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc. (Oct. 16, 2018, A152336) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact on his negligent misrepresentation claim.)
• Acevedo v. Episcopal Social Services of New York, Inc., NY Slip Op. 04832 (1st Dept. 2018) (New York: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint because plaintiff’s negligence claims were time-barred.)
• Gomez v. Safway Services, LLC (June 27, 2018, B281687) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal entered following the trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend based upon the statute of limitations.)
• Hua v. The Regents of the University of California (Apr. 11, 2018, E065198) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s negligence, premises liability and dangerous condition of public property causes of action.)
• Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Co. (Mar. 8, 2018, A142125) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim based on the allegation that the decedent developed mesothelioma after secondary exposure to asbestos brought home by his father.)
• Bhandari v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (Jan. 9, 2018, B275219) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a wrongful death premises liability lawsuit.)
• K.F. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Nov. 8, 2017, B276410) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed defense verdict after hotly contested one-month jury trial.)
• Tellier v. Hendel, et al (Sept. 7, 2017) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment after bench trial rejecting plaintiff’s arguments regarding credibility of witnesses and conflicts in evidence, and concluding substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.)
• Law v. Chemtall, Inc. (June 28, 2017, A17A0321) [nonpub. opn.] (Georgia: Court affirmed directed verdict in premises liability case because defendant discharged its duty to notify plaintiff of hazards.)
• Arenberg v. Fontaine (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2017, No. 16-15419) (nonpub. opn.) (9th Circuit/Arizona: Court affirmed district court’s summary judgment in plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.)
• Johnson v. Moore Dry Dock (Mar. 30, 2017, A146775) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on causes of action for negligence, products liability and loss of consortium arising out of alleged occupational exposure to asbestos during plaintiff’s service in the Navy.)
• DeLoof v. Ace Hardware Corp. (Mar. 2, 2017, B265886) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor defendant manufacturer concluding that plaintiffs had not and could not reasonably produce evidence showing exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by defendant.)
• Van Dusen v. City of Oakland (Feb. 27, 2017, 9th Cir. No. 15-15828) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.)
• Lozano v. Palm Communities et al. (Jan. 11, 2017, E062594) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants concluded that the property owners and property managers of an apartment complex did not owe a duty to take action before a tenant went on an unforeseeable shooting rampage against his neighbors.)
• Salameh v. 5th And K Master Association, Inc. (Sept. 23, 2015, D066096) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings because the complaint failed to state a cause of action.)
• Morales v Hapag-Lloyd AG. (2015) 21 N.Y.S.3d 316 (New York: Court reversed order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff’s action was barred by the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.)
• Ryser v. Ernest (Oct. 19, 2015, No. 72532-7-I) [nonpub. opn.] (Washington: Court affirmed judgment pursuant to jury verdict in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s easement interference, trespass, nuisance and interference with business expectancy claims.)
• Ryan v. Lustre-Cal (Dec. 26, 2014, B248845) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal after trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend based upon the statute of limitations.)
• Suconata v. Knickerbocker Properties, 116 A. D.3d 508 (1st Dept. 2014) (New York: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment to construction manager dismissing claims for common law negligence and pursuant to Labor Law section 200 on the grounds that it did not exercise supervision and control over the plaintiff’s work and requiring plaintiff’s employer to indemnify the construction manager pursuant to a broad contractual indemnification provision, pursuant to which the employer would be required to provide indemnity as to accident arising from negligence of plaintiff or the employer.)
• Lashgari v. Annie Chen et al. (Apr. 29, 2014, D063300) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants in plaintiff’s action for fraud and other claims arising out of the sale of a house.)
• Mercado v. Caithness, 104 A.D. 3d 576 (1st Dept. 2013) (New York: Court held that trial court improperly granted plaintiff summary judgment on claim pursuant to New York Labor Law section 241(6) because there were issues of fact as to plaintiff's comparative negligence.)
• Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Pauley Construction, Inc. (Jan. 30, 2013, A131078) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Reversed judgment following bench trial finding that the act of filing for bankruptcy does not constitute a material breach of contract that would preclude enforcement of an indemnity clause.)
• Garnica v. City of Santa Clarita (Dec. 21, 2012, B245290) (California: Alternative writ issued regarding order granting motion for good faith settlement determination in auto accident case where driver settled for policy limits, but evidence showed the driver and her father, who permitted her to drive, were primarily responsible for the accident and had other available assets. Trial court complied with the writ and vacated the order.)
• Grose v. Wedeking (Nov. 7, 2012, A136711) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Petition for writ of prohibition granted in contempt action.)
• DeFehr v. E-Escrows, Inc. (July 2, 2012, B229603) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed judgment sustaining demurrer sustained without leave to amend in plaintiff’s creditor’s action.)
• Savis v. City of New York, 2012 NY Slip Opn. 2665 (2d Dept. 2012) (New York: Denial of co-defendant’s summary judgment affirmed based on lack of evidence of ownership of real property.)
• Ardila v. Cox, 88 A.D. 3d. 829, 931 N.Y.S. 2d 120 (2d Dept. 2011) (New York: Summary judgment affirmed based on “emergency doctrine” where driver has no time to react to sudden emergency not of his own making.)
• Sample v. Temkin, 87 A.D. 3d 686, 928 N.Y.S. 2d 757 (2d Dept. 2011) (New York: Motor vehicle intersection collision, rejecting claim of automatic stay as nullifying verdict based on death of co-plaintiff in joined action.)

Governmental/Municipal Liability

• Carr v. City of Spring Valley Village, No. 19-20373, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13307 (5th Cir. May 17, 2022) (Texas: since several defendants were not properly served, and the remaining defendants failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted in an excessive force case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims.)
• Smith v. Heap, 31 F.4th 905 (5th Cir. 2022) (Texas: motion to dismissed granted where constable who was sued by another constable asserted qualified and statutory immunities.)
• Solis v. Serrett, 31 F.4th 975 (5th Cir. 2022) (Texas: order denying summary judgment as to excessive force claim reversed where officers did not violate arrestee’s rights.)
• Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680 (10th Cir. 2020) (Wyoming: judgment in favor of City affirmed where prior judgment in its favor was entitled to claim-preclusive effect.)
• Leon v. County of Riverside (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 837 (California: Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the county and found county immune where plaintiff sued county for negligence in treatment of deceased husband’s body at crime scene.)
• McChesney v. The People ex rel. Depart. of Transportation (Mar. 4, 2020, B295879) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed judgment after jury trial in inverse condemnation case because the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that defendant took or damaged plaintiffs’ property.)
• Baum v. City of Thousand Oaks (B288957, Sept. 24, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend because defendants did not have a mandatory duty to capture and impound a Rottweiler.)
• Moroz v. City of New York, 83 N.Y.S. 3d 300 (2nd Dept. 2018) (New York: Court reversed denial of motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based upon plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of claim against the municipal defendants within 90 days of the accident.)
• Estill v. County of Shasta (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 702 (California: Court reversed the trial court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and affirmed the judgment entered in favor of defendants.)
• Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water District (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1198 (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of water districts finding plaintiffs’ nuisance and inverse condemnation causes of action were preempted by federal and sate laws and otherwise insufficient on the merits.)
• Ghavashieh v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Mar. 20, 2018, B276071) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that plaintiffs failed to initiate the action within six months after defendant served its written denial of their claim.)
• Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1135 (California: Court affirmed nonsuit in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s complaint for negligence, dangerous condition of public property and failure to warn because defendants were statutorily immune from liability and the firefighter’s rule prevented plaintiff from recovering.)
   

Healthcare

• Vilches v. Leao (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1335 (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant holding that a health care provider may not be compelled to disclose a minor’s patient’s records unless the plaintiff can demonstrate the determination was made in bad faith.)

 

Homeowner's Associations

• Eicherly v. Palm Beach Park Assn. (G052396, Dec. 17, 2018) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s decision upholding a homeowners’ association’s election to ratify assessments levied on the association’s members.)
• Matter of Curlin v Clove Lane Homeowners Assn., Inc. (2017) 153 A.D.3d 922 (New York: Court revered trial court’s grant of petition in violation of rule that court cannot adjudicate petition until respondent has answered.)
• Watts v. Oak Shores Community Assn. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 466 (California: Court affirmed judgment and held that homeowners associations may adopt reasonable rules and impose fees on members relating to short-term rentals of condominium units.)
• Rancho Palo Verde Homeowners Association v. Coffman (Sept. 18, 2014, D063135) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants entered after trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend on plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action since defendants were not parties to the contract between the homeowners’ associations and did not have any rights or duties under the contract.)
• Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Ferwerda (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1178 (California: HOA planning committee had power to adopt standards beyond those set forth in the CC&R’s; attorney fee award reversed.)

Insurance

• Dynamic Event Group, Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, 220 A.D.3d 592 (1st Dept. 2023) (New York: affirming dismissal of complaint in insurance coverage action based on doctrine of mootness)
• MS & Sons v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd. (May 31, 2023, Ninth Cir. No. 22-55440) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant insurer. Third party plaintiffs lack of standing to pursue claims for breach of insurance contract due to insufficient assignment of such claims by insured.)
• Whispering Oaks v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (Mar. 13, 2023, H049906) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeal affirmed motion to quash summons and complaint on the ground that the court lack in personam jurisdiction over the defendant insurer.)
• Semanick v. State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co. (Jan. 25, 2023, B316340) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court of Appeal affirmed motion to quash summons and complaint on the ground that the court lack in personam jurisdiction over the defendant insurer.)
• The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut v. Walking U Ranch, LLC (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2023, No. 22-55359) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s claim for a bad faith breach of the insurance policy and request for attorney’s fees because defendant did not breach its duty to defend.)
• Eljac Enterprises, Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Ins. Co. (Mar. 3, 2023, B312799) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant insurance company on plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and unfair competition.)
• McCall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 18-16622 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020) [nonpub. opn.] (Nevada: Court affirmed order granting summary judgment for insurer client on basis there was no breach of contract, bad faith or unfair practices statutory violation as a matter of law.)
• Maalouf v. Praetorian Ins. Co. (No. 73640-COA, Nov. 7, 2018) (Nevada: Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on plaintiff insured’s breach of contract and bad faith claims based on the claim preclusion doctrine.)
• Gomez v. Alliance United Ins. Co. (Oct. 25, 2018, A152242) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of defendant following a demurrer sustained without leave to amend because defendant did not have a common law duty of care to determine that an individual who caused an accident was licensed before issuing him a policy.)
• Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Hagenberg (D.C. 2017) 167 A.3d 1218 (District of Columbia: Court reversed summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, directing trial court to enter summary judgment for defendant on anti-stacking clause issue.)
• Bita Trading, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017, No. 15-55371) [nonpub. opn.] (Ninth Circuit: Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment concluding that the clear language of the policy did not provide first-party property damage coverage.)
• Coker v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., No. 15-14070, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10842 (11th Cir. June 15, 2016) (11 Circuit: Court reversed summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims.)
• Bancinsure, Inc. v. FDIC (10th Cir. 2015) 796 F.3d 1226 (10th Circuit: Court affirmed summary judgment concluding that claims by FDIC receiver against three ex-directors of a bank were not covered by a directors and officers liability policy.)
• Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company v. Brooks (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2014, No. 14-11546) (11th Cir.: Court affirmed summary judgment entered in favor of our client in a case for accidental death benefits under a life insurance policy.)
• Rowley v. Rebecca Tenwick’s All-Mobile Bail Bonds (Apr. 9, 2014, E054252) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed order sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend in plaintiff’s action against insurance company for loss of personal and real property.)
• Gaeton St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 786 (California: Court affirmed order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend because defendant satisfied its contractual obligations under the fire insurance policies issued to plaintiffs.)
• Illinois Farmers Insurance Company v. Schneider (Sept. 19, 2013, No. 1-12-2304) [nonpub. opn.] (Illinois: Court reversed denial of motion for summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the hit-and-run provision of an uninsured motorist policy. Court held that Illinois law requires evidence of a sufficient casual connection between the insured’s vehicle and the hit-and-run vehicle, or its component parts, to trigger uninsured motorist coverage. Since the insured failed to provide any evidence as to where the abandoned bumper came from, or that it was ever attached to a vehicle, the requisite causal connection was absent and uninsured motorist benefits were denied.)
• Khlehr v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company (Aug. 28, 2013, No. 1-12-1843) (Illinois: Court granted our motion to dismiss an appeal filed against our client because plaintiff filed her brief late and plaintiff failed to move to file the brief instanter.)
• Quality Bldg. Contr., Inc. v Delos Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op. 06651 (1st Dept. 2013) (New York: Court reversed order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of whether defendant was obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff for claims asserted in underlying personal injury action; issues of fact regarding timeliness of defendant’s disclaimer of coverage precluded summary judgment, disclaimer was based on exclusion endorsement in policy.)
• Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Association v. Beta Healthcare Group (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (California: Professional liability policy with a clear and conspicuous arbitration provision is enforceable, regardless of whether the insured read the provision.)
• The Suit Gallery v. Granite State Insurance (Mar. 9, 2011, G042622) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed summary judgment in insurance coverage case involving a claim for burglary loss where coverage was denied because plaintiff represented that there had been no previous burglaries, when, in fact, there had been two prior events.)

 

Intellectual Property

• Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc. (Apr. 20, 2020, No. 1815914, 9th Cir. No. 19-15167) [nonpub. opn.] (9th Cir.: district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff an award of defendant’s profits or in admitting defendant’s survey evidence.)

Personal Injury

• Leathers v. Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc., 212 A.D.3d 482 (1st Dept. 2023) (Personal Injury: reversing and granting summary judgment to defendant based on plaintiff’s negligence per se in failing to obey pedestrian signal.)
• Ayala v. Tyler Development Co. (Aug. 16, 2022, B310262) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Summary judgment on Privette doctrine grounds affirmed where no exceptions to the doctrine applied to jobsite fatality caused by subcontractor’s negligence.)
• In the Matter of Joan Clarke v. Veolia Transportation services, Inc. (2nd Dept. 2022) (New York: Court affirmed the denial of a petitioner’s motion to serve a late notice of claim upon the county defendants stemming from an incident where a passenger allegedly fell while exiting a bus.)
• Villalta v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. (2021) 197 A.D.3d 1078 (New York: defendant was entitled to summary dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint because there was no evidence that it contracted for, directed or controlled, or benefitted from the work plaintiff was performing for the cable company at the time he was injured or that it was acting in the capacity of an accountable owner within the meaning of Labor Law section 240(1).)
• Lioudmila Ponomareva, et al. v. 1439 Realty, LLC (No. 2017-09596, 2nd Dept. Oct. 21, 2020) (Personal Injury: Court affirmed summary judgment and dismissal of a premises action in which a young man died in an accidental fire on basis experts’ opinions were speculative, conclusory and unsupported by evidence.)
• Nazir Ahmed v. F & G Group, LLC (No. 2018-00751, 2nd Dept. Oct. 21, 2020) (Personal Injury: Court affirmed summary judgment based on “sole proximate cause” defense.)
• Elliott v. Connect the Dots, Inc. (Apr. 2, 2020, B290888) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed judgment in favor of plaintiff after a jury trial concluding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the primary assumption of risk doctrine.)
• Ortiz v. Mar-Can Transportation Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 01036 (1st Dept. Feb. 13, 2020) (New York: Court affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was a special employee and her case was properly dismissed pursuant to the exclusivity provisions of New York’s Worker’s Compensation Law.)
• Petrie v. Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc. (2019) 173 A.D.3d 787 (New York: Court reversed denial of summary judgment in a personal injury action because the evidence established that the movement of the van at issue was not unusual and violent.)
• Jacobs v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2019 NY Slip Op 03689 (1st Dept. 2019) (New York: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence lawsuit against defendants.)
• Bucho-Gonzalez v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. (No. 1 CA-CV 16-091, Dec. 11, 2018) (Arizona: Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment where plaintiff could not show her injury on a piece of exercise equipment was possible absent her own misuse. Appellant sought review from the Arizona Supreme Court, which denied review, resulting in final judgments in client’s favor against appellant and her counsel in excess of $30,000.)
• Fish v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. (No. 1 CA-CV 16-0496, May 1, 2018) (Arizona: Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment where plaintiff lacked evidence to show her claimed electrical shock injury was caused by a treadmill rather than by her implanted neurostimulator.)
• Landau v. Balbona Restaurant Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op. 00051 (1st Dept. 2019) (New York: Court reversed judgment after jury verdict awarding plaintiff $529,964 plus costs as there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to charge the jury on theories that either riser heights or the handrail of a staircase at defendants’ restaurant were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.)
• Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Transportation Services (Oct. 25, 2018, No. 17-0465) [nonpub. opn.] (Arizona: Court affirmed judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendant, the superior court’s denial of various pretrial motions, the court’s decision to quash a trial subpoena for an out-of-state witness, and the court's judgment awarding the bus company its costs and offer-of-judgment sanctions.)
• Gudino v. Kalkat (May 21, 2018, C080625) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that defendant had no liability as the employer of an independent contractor under the Privette doctrine.)
• Ziman-Scheuer v. Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc. (2017) 149 A.D.3d 635 (New York: Court reversed trial court and entered summary judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint in a suit brought by an elderly passenger of a charter bus who slipped and fell while descending the bus steps late at night.)
• King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Dec. 21, 2015, No. 73936-1-I) [nonpub. opn.] (Washington: Court affirmed judgment in favor of client on an arbitration award in a motor vehicle accident case.)
• Bond v. HTrans Inc. (Aug. 13, 2015, D064668) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment after jury trial on the bifurcated issue of liability followed by a stipulated settlement on the issue of damages in a personal injury case.)
• Marie Moffett-Knox v. Anthony’s Windows On The Lake, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op. 01929 (2d Dept. 2015) (New York: Court affirmed defense verdict following a jury trial in plaintiff’s case involving a fall down a staircase at defendant’s catering hall.)
• Stephanie N. v. Davis, 2015 NY Slip Op. 01998 (1st Dept. 2015) (New York: Court upheld lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint in a motor vehicle case.)
• Kovera v. Envirite of Ill., Inc. (2015) 26 N.E.3d 936 (Illinois: Court affirmed jury verdict for a trucking company and its driver in a case involving a multiple-vehicle crash.)
• Longo v. Long Island Railroad, 116 A.D. 3d 676 (2d Dept. 2014) (New York: Court held that the trial court ruled correctly when, in addition to granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s personal injury claim pursuant to New York Labor Law section 200, it denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to assert claims pursuant to Labor Law section 241(6) and the New York Industrial Code on the basis of futility.)
• Graham Central Station, Inc. v. Peña (2014) 57 Tex. Sup. J. 858 (Texas: Court held that plaintiff presented no legally sufficient evidence that the party he sued was, in fact, the owner or in control of the nightclub in question.)
• Nussbaum v. Broken Down Valise Pub, 2014 NY Slip Op. 01589 (2d Dept. 2014) (New York: Court affirmed summary judgment for a trip-and-fall on a heating grate in the defendant’s tavern because the grate was “trivial,” despite plaintiff’s testimony of a lighting defect.)
• Issurdatt-Hafeez v. Hooks and Ladders, 2014 NY Slip Op. 50273 (1st Dept. 2014) (New York: Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a negligent security claim based on the “assumption of risk” defense for injury sustained during a brawl at defendant’s tavern.)
• Fengier v. Fredericka Manor Care Center (Dec. 17, 2013, D062723) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment because the alleged dangerous condition, the cluttered condition of a service room, was open and obvious, and defendant did not increase any risk in those conditions.)
• Murphy v. Matas (Aug. 23, 2013, A135758) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment based upon the primary assumption of the risk doctrine in plaintiff’s negligence action arising out of a tubing accident.)
• Ortiz v. Siddiqui (June 24, 2013, B239684) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in a case that involved a wrongful death negligence incident where an assailant drove his van into a group of people who were standing in front of a convenience store, killing one person and injuring others. The appellate court held that our clients owed no duty to prevent the assault, or to protect the plaintiffs from harm.)
• Vinson v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (May 14, 2013, B237965) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court reversed judgment following jury trial finding that by signing the release, plaintiff expressly consented to waive any claims based on injuries incurred while participating in any activities sponsored by defendants.)
• Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402 (California: Court affirmed judgment after a jury trial and affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in plaintiff’s negligence action arising out of a car accident.)
• Lee v. ANA Dev. Corp., 2013 NY Slip Op. 06522 (1st Dept. 2013) (New York: Court reversed an order denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, based on plaintiff’s testimony that she did not know what caused her to fall down stairs or where precisely she fell, plaintiff’s expert engineer failed to raise a triable issue despite prior fall on same staircase and uneven treads.)
• Spero v. Aswasthi Limited Partners, 2013 NY Slip Op. 03662 (2d Dept. 2013) (New York: Court affirmed judgment based on jury verdict, finding that defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s fall, jury rejected claim that broken door struck plaintiff’s back and caused her to fall forward.)
• Franchini v. American Legion Post, 2013 NY Slip Op. 04101 (1st Dept. 2013) (New York: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, granting defendant’s summary judgment motion; plaintiff tripped over “open and obvious” step that was not inherently dangerous despite distractions and prior fall on same step.)
• Roach v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp., 2013 NY Slip Opn. 411 (1st Dept. 2013) (New York: Appellate Court dismisses complaint based on lack of evidence that plaintiff sustained “serious injury” as defined by New York Insurance Law 5102.)
• Felicia v. Boro Crescent Corp., 2013 NY Slip Opn. 2215 (2d Dept. 2013) (New York: Appellate Court affirms jury trial defense verdict based on witness testimony indicating school bus driver was not at fault for intersection collision with plaintiff’s bicycle.)
• Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403 (California: Summary judgment affirmed in favor of defendant Omni in a personal injury case involving an alleged slip-and-fall in a hotel bathtub. The court refused to impose liability on Omni since the plaintiff could not demonstrate that Omni was placed on sufficient actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition of the bathtub at its hotel.)
• Stone v. Hot Dogger Tours (Aug. 15, 2012, B228603) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Judgment after jury trial affirmed in personal injury action.)
• Campoverde v. Fabian Bldrs., LLC, 2012 NY Slip Opn. 03973 (2d Dept. 2012) (New York: Summary judgment reversed in favor of client based on evidence of control over plaintiff’s work in Labor Law action involving fall from ladder.)
• Knudson v. Mamaroneck Post No. 90, 2012 NY Slip Opn. 03145 (2d Dept. 2012) (New York: Defense verdict and judgment affirmed rejecting claim of circumstantial evidence that broken door latch or improper door/stair configuration caused fall and wrongful death.)
• Shaw v. Bleupers, 2012 NY Slip Opn. 02669 (2d Dept. 2012) (New York: Summary judgment affirmed in slip-and-fall claim based on lack of notice of snow and ice hazard.)
• Garcia v. Sunny Transp. Servs., 2012 NY Slip Opn. 7086 (2d Dept. 2012) (New York: Appellate Court reverses summary judgment to plaintiff based on lack of evidence of actionable defect in staircase that led to fall injury.)
• Egizii v. Shapell Industries (Nov. 7, 2011, G044125) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed judgment finding plaintiffs waived claims to additional compensatory damages after acceptance of payment and execution of a full satisfaction of judgment.)

Premises Liability

• Padilla v. Holrod Assoc. LLC, 215 A.D.3d 573 (1st Dept. 2023) (New York: reversing lower court and dismissing complaint in trip and fall case based on out of possession landlord defense.)
• Blaylock v. DMP 250 Newport Center, LLC (May 30, 2023, G061301) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that the Kinsman exception to the Privette doctrine did not apply.)
• Santizo v. Huerta (Feb. 28, 2022, B302172) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment where plaintiff’s injuries from fire pit in backyard of rental property were not foreseeable to landlords and landlords did not owe plaintiff a duty of care because landlords did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the fire pit.)
• Jassim v. Brentwood Cedar Tree HOA (Oct. 20, 2021, B305752) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendant Homeowner’s Association’s motion for summary judgment because the defect in question was a trivial defect as a matter of law and plaintiff’s expert declaration did not support the alleged aggravating factors with admissible evidence.)
• Garcia v. D/AQ Corporation et al. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 902 (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment because exculpatory clause in the commercial lease plaintiff had signed shielded the lessor from liability for ordinary negligence.)
• Veltre v. Rainbow Convenience Store, Inc. (2019) 172 A.D.3d 621 (New York: Court reversed denial of summary judgment because defendants established that plaintiff did not slip and fall on snow or ice on the sidewalk abutting their premises, by submitting the deposition testimony from both plaintiffs stating that the accident occurred in front of the adjacent premises and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.)
• Schonbrun v. Marjep Realty Corp., NY Slip Op. 1494 (2d Dept. 2018) (New York: Court reversed order denying summary judgment finding that our client, a cosmetics manufacturing and distribution company, established that it did not create a dangerous condition on the premises and did nothing to proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
• Rosario v. Prana Nine Properties, LLC, NY Slip Op. 06431 (1st Dept. 2016) (New York: Court dismissed two claims based on separate accidents in a negligence suit against a building owner.)
• Leary v. Dallas BBQ, 91 A.D. 3d 519, 936 N.Y.S. 2d 541 (1st Dept. 2012) (New York: Summary judgment affirmed in sidewalk trip-and-fall claim based on lack of duty of care owed by tenant-lessee.)
• Schwartz v. Bleu Evolution, NY Slip Opn. 08980 (1st Dept. 2011) (New York: Appellate division dismissed complaint based on finding that sidewalk condition was too “trivial” to sustain a cause of action.)

Probate/Trust & Estates

• Conservatorship of Bower (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 495 (California: Court reversed trial court order dividing a couple’s estate.)
• In the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson, No. 01-15-00567-CV (Ct. App. Texas Aug. 25, 2016) (Texas: achieved complete dismissal with prejudice of all claims against our client in the trial court and also obtained an award of attorney’s fees for our client. The core of the dispute concerned the placement of a 93-year-old woman with severe dementia into our client’s Memory Care Facility.)
• Konstin v. Bomar (Mar. 14, 2014, A137123) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed the judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend secured for our client because plaintiffs were not successors in interest under the trust and therefore lacked standing to sue.)

Products Liability

• Braverman v. BMW of North America, LLC (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023, No. 21-55427) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding the consumer-expectation test did not apply.)
• Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd. (9th Cir. 2023) 62 F.4th 496 (Hawaii: Court affirmed judgment entered following a district court’s dismissal of defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.)
• LG Chem, Ltd v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348 (California: Court issued a writ of mandate commanding the trial court to vacate its order denying defendant’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.)
• Valerio v. 265 McClellan Realty, Inc., 160 N.Y.S.3d 582 (1st Dept. 2022) (New York: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s failure to warn claims because plaintiff did not raise an issue of fact as to whether any such failure to warn proximately caused his injuries.)
• Miller v. LG Chem, Ltd. (Feb. 1, 2022, No. COA20-687 Ct. App. N.C.) (North Carolina: Court affirmed order granting motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to defendants’ contacts with the forum.)
• Ochoa v. T.M. Duche Nut Co., Inc. (Nov. 23, 2020, F074947) [nonpub. opn.] (Products Liability: Court affirmed order granting summary judgment for company because no triable issue as to whether company was liable as successor company for manufacturing, designing and/or selling allegedly defective product.)
• Walsh v. LG Chem Limited (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2020, No. 19-17323) 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34522 (Products liability: Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of client following dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.)
• De Molina v. Glasswerks LA, Inc. (Aug. 12, 2020, B301736) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment entered in favor of defendant as defendant presented evidence sufficient to show the lack of a connection between defendant’s finished products and plaintiff’s exposure to harmful substances and plaintiff did not demonstrate a triable issue of material fact existed.)
• McCasland v. Pro Guard Coatings, Inc. (Jan 23, 2020, No. 18-15065) [nonpub. opn.) (11th Cir.: Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.)
• Gonggryp v. BMW of North America LLC (Sept. 14, 2018, B279895) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirms judgment in favor of defendants after the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in a products liability case.)
• Monje v. Spin Master Inc. (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2017, No. 15-16480) [nonpub. opn.] (Arizona: Court concluded that the district court did not err in: (1) granting partial summary judgment for defendants on punitive damages; (2) holding that plaintiffs were judicially estopped from asserting claims for loss of consortium, emotional distress and past and future medical expenses; and (3) excluding plaintiffs’ expert witness from opining that defendant’s product caused the minor to suffer permanent brain injuries.)
• Shirk v. Builders Fence Company Inc. (July 22, 2014, F066015) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment after jury found in defendant’s favor on plaintiff’s strict products liability and negligence claims.)
• Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corporation (Dec. 10, 2013, 9th Cir. No. 11-15574) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s medical device was a substantial factor in causing his injury.)
• Ibanez v. S&S Worldwide Inc. (May 20, 2013, B238269) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed summary judgment in a products liability case involving claims of successor liability.)
• Maxton v. Western States Metals (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 81 (California: Raw material supplier defense applied as a matter of law to suppliers of raw metals where metals give off toxic dust that causes lung disease when metals are cut, sanded, ground, etc.)

Professional Liability

• Alai v. Colton (Dec. 27, 2023, G061033) [nonpub. opn.] (Professional Liability: Court affirmed the judgment following jury verdict in fraud and breach of contract action by client against former counsel. Plaintiff failed to establish court abused its discretion on evidentiary rulings. Plaintiff also forfeited numerous arguments by failing to cite to the record or legal authority, and failed to timely appeal from order denying disqualification motion and JNOV.)
• Sunset Group Realty, Inc. v. A. Rideau & Associates, Inc. (Jan. 12, 2024, B327620) [nonpub. opn.] (Professional Liability: Court affirmed trial court order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend because the complaint was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.)
• Howard v. Luhnow (Sept. 20, 2022, D078467) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of estate planning attorney on the basis that the attorney did not owe a duty to plaintiff either as an intended beneficiary or successor trustee to determine her step-father’s competence in amending his trust to disinherit her, and on the alternative basis that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.)
• Miles v. Powers (Jan. 10, 2020, G056486) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment following trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend based upon the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a).)
• Cavaretta v. Retz (July 26, 2017, B270928) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed dismissal of legal malpractice action based on statute of limitations because actual injury occurred more than one year before plaintiff filed the complaint.)
• Hart v. Darwish (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 218 (California: Court affirmed dismissal of malicious prosecution action under the interim adverse judgment rule.)
• Guseinov v. Habashy (Mar. 21, 2017, B264339) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment in favor of defendant lawyer in a complex legal malpractice action arising from a series of business transactions.)
• Galea v. Burgess (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017, No. 15-56468) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant life insurance agent on plaintiff’s fraud and deceit and professional negligence claims.)
• Pacific Coast Drilling Co., Inc. v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. (A140423, A141464, Nov. 14, 2016) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of our client, an insurance agent, concluding that plaintiffs failed to allege factual allegations to support their new negligence per se theory raised for the first time in opposition to the summary judgment motion.)
• Elias v. McJab, Inc. (Sept. 22, 2016, D068119) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed defense verdict in favor of defendant concluding that a real estate agent did not act within the course and scope of his agency in connection with the sale of plaintiffs’ real property.)
• Gragnani v. Stafford (Dec. 30, 2015, A141725/A141767) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of insurance agent since insurance agent did not owe a duty to notify plaintiffs the policy was not being renewed or that she left the insurance business.)
• Josovich v. Ceylan (2015) 133 A.D.3d 570 (New York: Court affirmed pre-answer motion to dismiss third-party claims based on lack of privity and absence of any duty running from the attorney for the seller of real property to the purchasers.)
• Sullivan’s Stone Factory, Inc. v. Downey, Cavadias & Dean, Inc. (June 6, 2014, E054256) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed grant of summary judgment in plaintiff’s case for fraud and deceit because defendants insurance brokers did not know that plaintiff’s premium on the workers’ compensation insurance policy procured by defendants would increase substantially due to plaintiff’s purchase of another company.)
• Horn v. Rand (Mar. 9, 2015, B252044) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment after a jury verdict in favor of defendant in an attorney malpractice action.)
• Mark Tanner Construction, Inc. v. Hub International Insurance Services, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 574 (California: Court affirmed summary judgment secured for our client in a case involving an insurance broker’s fiduciary duty and held that there is no authority supporting a fiduciary duty that would extend to areas beyond the recognized duty to owe reasonable care and diligence in the procuring of insurance at the insured’s request.)
• Brakke v. Economic Concepts, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 761 (California: Court affirmed judgment of dismissal of all causes of action based upon allegations that defendants misrepresented that contributions to a pension plan would be tax deductible. Plaintiffs could not establish the statements were false when made because the alleged representations were made before the Internal Revenue Service issued definitive guidance regarding the plans at issue.)
• Tindell v. Shaw (June 13, 2013, C068453) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Affirmed judgment of dismissal following trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs’ fraud causes of action without leave to amend.)
• McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 540 (California: Court affirmed judgment after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend in plaintiff’s action against defendant attorney for damages resulting from attorney’s purported misconduct while acting as plaintiff’s guardian ad litem during a divorce proceeding.)

Real Property

• Tierney v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2023, No. 22-35221) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.)
• Saffore v. Jones (Mar. 9, 2023, B309099) [nonpub. opn.] (California: judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of defendants in an action arising out of the habitability of a rental property.)
• Greif v. Sanin (2022) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 65] (California: buyer’s broker owed no duty to the seller to tell the seller that the sale price was too low, even where the seller suffered from various illnesses and disorders, which he claimed severely impacted his cognitive abilities.)
• Valente v. Bank of America, NA (Nov. 17, 2021, No. 20-16604) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit arising out of the purchase of a property and subsequent foreclosure proceedings on the basis of the statute of limitations.)
• Sprankles v. Sullivan (Aug. 18, 2020, D075334) [nonpub. opn.] (California: Court affirmed judgment granting an equitable easement to defendants.)
• Friends of the Hastain Trail v. Coldwater Development LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1013 (California: Court reversed trial court judgment declaring a public trail easement was established by public dedication through defendants' property for hiking, jogging, and dog walking.)