HOME




SUCCESS STORIES

  • Recently, Charles Messer represented the Los Angeles Unified School District and one of its teachers in a personal injury action by an autistic sixth grader. Plaintiff alleged assault, battery, and negligence, as well as negligent training of teachers and negligent student placement. Plaintiff's allegations were supported by the student's one-on-one aide. Mr. Messer was successful in persuading the trial court to dismiss most of the negligence allegations for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
    Result: Following a jury trial of remaining issues, the jury returned a defense verdict for the District and the teacher on April 27, 2005.

  • In another recent case, Jeffery J. Carlson and Edgar De Vera successfully defended a chiropractic college including its faculty against allegations that it systematically discriminated against two students because of their national origin. The students claimed that they received lower than expected grades as a result of this alleged discrimination. They also alleged that the school retaliated against them when they complained about the alleged discrimination. In connection with these claims, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for Breach of Contract, Discrimination in the Making and Enforcement of Contracts pursuant to 42 USC §1981, Unlawful Deprivation of Right to Full and Equal Accommodations pursuant to California Civil Code §51 et seq., Discrimination Under Federally Assisted Programs In Violation of Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant to 42 USC §2000d et seq. and Discrimination By An Educational Institution Receiving State Financial Assistance pursuant to California Education Code §§200 et seq., 66252 and 66030f.
    Result: At the trial court, Mr. Carlson and Mr. De Vera vindicated their client and its faculty by obtaining summary judgment against the plaintiffs. In addition, Mr. De Vera uncovered evidence that the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel had withheld harmful evidence and intimidated and tampered with witnesses. As a result, Mr. Carlson and Mr. De Vera filed a Motion to Compel which was granted by the court and prompted the court to issue heavy monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel for their abuse of the discovery process.

  • Three students were arrested by police on their high school campus as a result of an alleged rape. After being acquitted in the criminal trial that ensued, the students sued LAUSD for personal injury, emotional distress, defamation and slander, based on a theory that LAUSD had failed to protect and made defamatory statements about them.
    Result: Our demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint was granted in its entirety, and when plaintiffs failed to file a timely amendment, we obtained a dismissal with prejudice.

  • In a case involving four FCRA claims and six Arizona State tort claims, our firm countered Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment with our own Cross Motions for Summary Judgment.
    Result: The court granted our Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in plaintiff’s favor on any of his claims if they were brought to trial. Thus, completely exonerating our client of any wrongdoing.

  • We represented a social worker in a wrongful death case brought by the parents of and the estate of an inmate in a California correctional facility. The inmate, diagnosed with a bipolar disorder and placed on a prescribed treatment program, had not received medication for four days and experienced a severe psychotic episode. This resulted in further deterioration of his condition and the need to transfer him to the prison hospital. During the transfer, plaintiff became panicky and violent, causing prison staff to attempt to restrain him. In the restraining process, plaintiff lost consciousness and died the following day. Plaintiffs initiated a civil rights action, as well as a wrongful death action and claims of negligence, negligence per se, assault under color of law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees. The case involved over 20 depositions and a great deal of written discovery. Mr. Carlson and Mr. De Vera prepared and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
    Result: Plaintiffs filed a Non-Opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment and we were able to completely extricate our client from this expensive lawsuit.
  • In a case stemming from an auto accident in Marina Del Ray, California whereby plaintiff was rear-ended by a co-defendant who was driving under the influence, we filed a Demurrer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on behalf of our clients Los Angeles School District, their Workers Compensation administrator, and the Workers Compensation adjuster.
    Result: The court sustained our Demurrer and granted our Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, all without leave to amend, for failure to state any viable cause of action as well as failing to comply with requisite provisions of the California Tort Claims Act as they apply to public entities.
  • In a matter involving the interpretation of an indemnity agreement, David Kaminski prepared and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client, a subcontractor.
    Result: Despite the fact that the judge stated at the hearing that he rarely grants motions for summary judgment and he routinely searches for reasons to deny them, he granted our motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

  • In a cutting-edge case of alleged marital discrimination, based upon the termination of an employee for conflict of interest after the employer learned that the employee's wife worked for a competitor, Charles Messer defended the employer against allegations including marital status discrimination, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. We obtained a summary judgment which was appealed by plaintiff.
    Result: The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's granting of our Motion for Summary Judgment.

  • In a case alleging negligence on the basis of a school district not providing supervision of an area outside the closed gates of the school and prior to the start of school a Motion for Summary Judgment was prepared and filed with the court.
    Result: The Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in its entirety, the court finding "[t]hat the District had no duty to provide supervision outside the closed gates prior to the start of school, and furthermore... the burden to the district in providing even earlier supervision outside the gates ... would divert scarce public funds away from educations purposes".

  • We successfully completed three trials in the Stealth Lockheed toxic tort cases. The trials involved cases consisting of 14 to 40 plaintiffs, arguably representative of 644 plaintiffs who claimed respiratory ailments, brain injuries, central and peripheral nervous system damages, cancer and the enhanced risk of, and fear of cancer, as a result of exposure to approximately 200 chemicals, including industrial solvents, degreasers, adhesives, resins, advanced structural composite materials, asbestos, silica and other chemicals used in the manufacturing process, which have been alleged to have a co-carcinogenic or synergistic effect, in the workplace environment. There were over 30 chemical defendant manufacturers and suppliers and we represented a Joint Defense Group of (originally) 7 chemical manufacturers or suppliers in this litigation.
    Result: Two of our clients were dismissed by way of motions for summary judgment. The remaining defendants proceeded to trial by Jeffery Carlson, with the first trial lasting approximately 9 months (including jury deliberations) resulting in a hung jury. The second trial resulted in nearly all of our clients' products found to have adequate warnings. During the second trial of "pilot" plaintiffs, we secured a directed verdict in favor of one of our clients. Another chemical manufacturer, previously represented by a different firm in this litigation, asked us to take over its defense. Jeffery Carlson obtained defense verdicts in 24 out of 26 warnings issues and punitive damages claims in the Stealth Lockheed cases, and his Joint Defense Group clients obtained the most wins (i.e., on warnings, punitive damages) than approximately 10-12 other firms. Additionally, one of Mr. Carlson's clients was the only defendant to receive a directed verdict in the Stealth Lockheed cases. In the trial of Stealth Lockheed IV, involving 28 plaintiffs, we prevailed in 26 cases, obtaining defense verdicts regarding warnings issues for our remaining client, a chemical manufacturer. The case settled prior to entry of judgment being entered.

  • In a case involving allegations of negligent hiring, training and supervision, our attorneys prepared and filed a demurrer setting forth arguments based on Statute of Limitations and Govermental Immunity.
    Result: Our demurrer was sustained without leave to amend based upon the Statute of Limitations.

  • An adult student tripped over a nail protruding from the baseboard in a doorway and sued the school district.
    Result: Our motion for summary judgment on behalf of the school district was successful and we pursued costs against plaintiff.

  • Jeffery Carlson tried an intentional interference with prospective business advantage and fraud case in which he represented a corporate officer and company. Plaintiffs were a closely held corporation, and the principals of that corporation (i.e. a husband and wife) claimed that the defendants engaged in unlawful, usurious and fraudulent lending practices in connection with accounts receivable financing of the garment business. The trial presented a number of interesting legal issues, one of which was a matter of first impression in California, as well as some unusual developments during the process of the defense and trial of the case. These developments included the principals divorcing, claiming the divorce was a result of the financial pressure and lending practices of our clients, the husband plaintiff dying in the middle of trial and their estranged son offering to present evidence damaging to the plaintiff principals' (i.e. his parents) case in exchange for a payment of money.
    Result: Mr. Carlson won this case on behalf of our clients and the matter was upheld by the California Court of Appeal.

  • We represented a manufacturer and its insurers in a subrogation matter against a warehouseman for damages caused by a forklift fire. Charles Messer tried the case on theories of negligent maintenance of the forklift and negligent response (lack of an emergency plan) to the fire.
    Result: Our clients received a unanimous favorable verdict and we successfully recovered $1.9 million

  • In a consolidated personal injury/torts lawsuit involving college students injured while traveling in a school van for a field trip, when another vehicle rear-ended the van on the freeway, Jeanne Zimmer defended the college district and the student driver. The force of the impact spun the van 180 degrees and the van burst into flames. There were 8 students in the van, 7 of whom were injured. The driver of the car which struck the college van also sued the district and the student driver.
    Result: We successfully resolved two cases based on school district immunity and extricated the district from the lawsuit on the same basis. The other cases were settled for minimal amounts.

  • We represented a manufacturer and its insurer for damages caused by a fire during disassembly of a modular building.
    Result: We negotiated a settled in the entire amount of the defendant contractor's $1 million policy limit, without litigation.

  • Plaintiff filed a class action against a debt collector alleging various threatening and harassing activities by the debt collector.
    Result: During the pleading stages of the litigation, we obtained a dismissal of the class allegations.

  • We represented a component parts fabricator of asbestos-containing products, in a cutting-edge multi-party asbestos mesothelioma case, where the case turned on whether website and internet contacts were sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
    Result: We obtained an early dismissal as a result of a creatively-drafted motion to quash based upon a lack of in personam jurisdiction.

  • In an assault and battery case in which a teacher claimed she was assaulted by school police and suffered personal injuries, we defended the school district.
    Result: We successfully defeated plaintiff's request for permission to file a late claim against the school district.

  • In a personal injury case in which plaintiff, a second grade girl, fell when she was running to the bathroom and lacerated her knee at the threshold of the bathroom door, we successfully defended the school district.
    Result: Jeanne Zimmer defended the matter at arbitration and convinced plaintiff to dismiss the case to avoid the expense of a trial.

  • Plaintiff, a young girl, tried to close a bathroom window at a school when the window fell and severed a portion of her finger.
    Result: We successfully opposed plaintiff's petition to file a late claim, despite the severe injuries.

  • We represented an insurance company which sued the Directors and Officers of a corporation for declaratory judgment in an insurance coverage matter. The allegation was that the insurance company had no obligation to provide a defense to four class actions which were being tried together in federal court. The insurance company was also seeking reimbursement for legal fees which it incurred in defending the directors and officers and the corporation.
    Result: The case was resolved with our client, the insurance company, receiving $250,000 reimbursement.

  • We have defended a class action involving plaintiffs' allegations that certain finance charges (i.e. late fees, penalties, collection charges) in addition to the interest charge, were unenforceable under California State law. This class action also included allegations that such charges were illegal and constituted an unfair business practice, under Business & Professional Code §17200, and constituted a violation of the State and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (FDCPA).
    Result: We prevailed in that case on cross-motions for summary judgment.

  • In an alleged class action by African-American students who claimed physical and verbal assaults by Hispanic school police officers and improper random searches of students, Jeffery Carlson and Jeanne Zimmer successfully opposed class certification.
    Result: Classification was denied, after which we settled the matter for minimal amounts as to the two named plaintiffs.

  • Plaintiff claimed respiratory illness, fatigue syndrome (fibromyalgia), dermatitis, cardiovascular abnormalities, brain damage and kidney disease and underwent a kidney transplant in a case in which we represented a manufacturer of silica products.
    Result: We obtained a dismissal of the silica product manufacturer and paid a nominal settlement on behalf of a second defendant in the case, who allegedly supplied corrosion inhibiting primer and materials which were claimed to be carcinogenic.

  • In a federal civil rights case in which plaintiff, a high school senior, refused to relinquish her cell phone which was not allowed according to school rules, Charles Messer defended the school district and the school police officers. School officers were brought in to recover the cell phone, an altercation ensued in which plaintiff (5'10", 210 lbs.) kicked and scratched one officer, and plaintiff was arrested for disruption.
    Result: A motion for summary judgment was decided in our client's favor, which plaintiff appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the district decided to settle the matter for a minimal amount, which was made possible due to the successful defense strategy.

  • In a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), plaintiff brought claims under the California Unfair Business Practices Act and Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, claiming that the collection of contingent collection fees from defaulting debtors on student loans was per se unlawful under an old line of decisions by the California Supreme Court, and therefore, was a violation of the State and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts.
    Result: On cross motions for summary judgment, the Federal District Court ruled in favor of our client on all issues. Plaintiff's counsel subsequently dismissed a related class action, which we had removed to federal court.

  • We represented a manufacturer and its insurer against an asbestos abatement contractor and project manager for damages caused by a fire during the project.
    Result: Defendants paid their policy limits of nearly $2 million to settle this litigation.

  • We defended a fraudulent theft claim of over $700,000.00.
    Result: We obtained a settlement for mutual waiver of costs, despite the client's negligence in failing to complete an insurance contract for plaintiff. This was accomplished by locating and deposing the company's accountant who had handled the plaintiff's criminal tax evasion charges.

  • We represented a sugar cane field owner and its insurer in a case against an electric utility company for negligence that ignited a fire and burned the owner's field.
    Result: We settled the case for over $500,000.

  • In a methyl bromide case, plaintiff alleged catastrophic neurological injuries.
    Result: We successfully obtained a dismissal for a waiver of costs during trial and subsequently obtained a free dismissal from a recalcitrant co-defendant's cross-complaint.

  • A commercial office building was flooded by its fire sprinkler system after a pipe coupling suddenly broke in the middle of the night.
    Result: We recovered over $2 million from the coupling's distributor and the sprinkler contractor who installed it.

  • We represented a Homeowners Association and property manager in a multimillion dollar suit for paraplegic injuries sustained by an employee of a third party contractor on individual homeowner premise.
    Result: We obtained summary judgment for the Homeowners Association and the Property Manager.

  • We handled a class action matter in which plaintiffs alleged that language in the dunning letters referring to debtors' having a "valid reason" not to pay, overshadowed the validation notice.
    Result: We prevailed on this issue on a summary judgment motion.

  • We represented the manager of a credit union pension fund when the manager was sued for beach of fiduciary duties and multiple ERISA violations in addition to other causes of action. This was a multi-party case where the fund manager was the target defendant throughout the litigation. The allegation was that the manager mismanaged the fund, invested in risky, non-blue chip investments which allegedly put the fund at risk and allegedly caused a loss to the fund in the neighborhood $80,000,000 - $120,000,000.
    Result: We successfully resolved the case in favor of the investment manager.