“I dared not trust the case on the presumption that the court knows everything. In fact, I argued it on the presumption that the court didn’t know anything.”
Abraham Lincoln

  • Defense Win at Trial: Jeanne L. Zimmer obtained a trial victory for a collection agency against a debtor’s consumer-law claims. The case arose from a collection case filed by Asset Acceptance, LLC against Luis Roman, for an unpaid Citibank credit account. Mr. Roman filed a Cross-Complaint alleging breach of contract, FDCPA, credit reporting and intentional tort claims against NES and Asset Acceptance. Mr. Roman and his ex-wife are police officers and the case was filed in Orange County, California Superior Court, a conservative jurisdiction where police officers have historically fared well in jury trials. Ms. Zimmer filed a motion to sever our statute of limitations defense. After a fully briefed and contested hearing, that motion was granted. The trial of the statute of limitations defense included extensive testimony by four witnesses, after which Judge Robert Monarch entered judgment in favor of our client NES. Thereafter, Asset Acceptance and Roman settled the collection lawsuit. Subsequently, NES filed a cost bill, Roman filed a motion to tax the costs, which was denied, and NES was awarded $6500 in costs.
  • Non-Suit Granted at Trial: Judge Michael Cowell, Department D, Norwalk, granted a motion for nonsuit filed by our client, Los Angeles Unified School District and its employee, in a wrongful death action involving the death of a 15 year old boy, based on a cutting-edge application of a Daubert approach to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Immediately following plaintiffs’ counsel’s opening statement, Jeffery Carlson made the Motion for Nonsuit based on the fact that plaintiffs could not prove a prima facie case of negligence in a multi-vehicle sequence of collisions due to the fact that plaintiffs would proffer no expert testimony on the issue of causation. Judge Cowell did not rule on the motion immediately, allowing plaintiffs to file opposition to the motion. The trial began and witnesses were called. Plaintiffs’ counsel urged the court to allow plaintiffs to finish their case in chief prior to hearing the motion for nonsuit. Plaintiffs had begun their damages case; the father of the decedent was on the witness stand in the morning when the lunch recess began. After lunch, but before the jury was ordered back, argument on the motion for nonsuit was heard. Jeffery J. Carlson, Jeanne L. Zimmer and Stephen A. Watkins, attorneys for Los Angeles Unified School District and its employee, argued plaintiffs did not have any expert testimony as to how or when the bus lost steering control such that the bus driver could not control it and could not avoid the accident nor the impact with the decedent, so the defense experts on causation were uncontroverted. Since these are areas of expertise beyond the understanding of the common person, expert testimony (accident reconstructionist testimony) was necessary, we urged. All parties had retained accident reconstructionist experts, but plaintiffs and co-defendant de-designated their experts prior to taking of expert depositions. Our motion for nonsuit was a very creative application of a Daubert approach (although California has not adopted Daubert; rather California uses the Kelly-Fryeapproach) to the admissibility of scientific evidence. In the motion we argued the gatekeeping function of the trial court in keeping out “naked opinions” not based on reliable scientific standards. Jeffery J. Carlson was one of the main architects on the attack against “junk science” which resulted in the Daubert decision in 1990, a United States Supreme Court decision, and the preeminent case used by the federal courts to exclude “junk science.” Judge Cowell granted the Motion for Nonsuit in favor of defendants Los Angeles Unified School District and its employee. Plaintiffs appealed granting of the nonsuit. Our response in the Court of Appeal was based on a California Supreme Court decision in Sargon Enterprises v. Univ. of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th, 747, which discussed the gatekeeper analysis we advanced.  Ms. Zimmer successfully argued the appeal to the California Court of Appeal, which upheld the granting of the nonsuit.
  • Defense Verdict: Charles R. Messer represented defendant Cameron International in a products liability case that he tried to a defense jury verdict. Cameron manufactured a blocking-valve that Signal Hill Petroleum Company installed in a high-pressure brine-injection pipeline, in its oil field. A few years later, Signal Hill closed the valve and cut the pipeline to repair a well. A few hours after that, the valve allegedly opened by itself, which released a pressurized geyser of brine onto adjacent property owners. After Signal Hill settled with the property owners for about $1 million, it sued Cameron for indemnity, alleging that the valve was defectively manufactured and lacked sufficient warnings. The trial court granted Signal Hill’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues as to failure-to-warn theory, under the sophisticated user doctrine. The jury returned a defense verdict as to Signal Hill’s manufacturing defect theory. And because Signal Hill failed to accept our Offer to Compromise (CCP 998) for $10,000.00, the court ordered Signal Hill to pay Cameron’s expert witnesses’ fees and costs that exceeded $50,000.
  • Decision – Dismissal: In a published U.S. District Court decision, the court ruled in favor of our client that judicial estoppel applies to a debtor who failed to list her FDCPA claim as an asset in bankruptcy and, therefore, could not state a cause of action against a debtor collector. Our motion to dismiss on behalf of our client was granted. Black v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Washington 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 130787.
  • Dismissal: A motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend as to FDCPA/Rosenthal Act claims because state court litigation provided plaintiff with full opportunity to address whether or not the interest asserted in a collection dunning letter was improper and, therefore, the interest rate was not materially misleading in the dunning letter at issue since plaintiff failed to address the issue in a state court action. Jeske v. Persolve, LLC (2013) 3:10-CV-01626-ADJB-WMC.
  • Class Action Resolution – FDCPA Matter: We resolved a class action involving dunning letters sent to debtors allegedly overshadowing the validation period by threatening to credit report the debts after substituting in for prior counsel who had been unable to resolve the matter on an individual basis, thereby, avoiding expensive class certification motions and discovery.
  • Dismissal – Successful Motion for Summary Judgment: This wrongful death case involved plaintiffs’ decedent, an LAUSD employee, who was forcibly (at gunpoint) removed from the premises of an early education center during school hours, by her estranged boyfriend (and father of one of her 4 children) and killed by the boyfriend during a police shoot-out the next day. Plaintiffs sued LAUSD and certain employees, claiming the premises were unsafe and LAUSD had a duty to protect its employees because it should have known of the violent propensities of the employee’s boyfriend. After extensive and hotly contested discovery, we filed a successful Motion for Summary Judgment and disposed of this case prior to what would have been a lengthy and expensive trial.
  • Class Action Resolution – TCPA Matter: We resolved a class action in a TCPA matter in which plaintiff alleged thousands of calls to cells phones, thereby, avoiding expensive class certification and motions.
  • Successful Motion for Summary Judgment – Class Action – Dunning Letters: 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.
  • Successful Motion for Summary Judgment: 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.
  • Successful Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal: In a recent case arising from plaintiffs’ allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior by their teacher, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ Appellants’ Petition for Review of defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Jeffery J. Carlson defended the Los Angeles Unified School District in this action and successfully argued that the plaintiffs’ lack of compliance with the Tort Claims act, specifically the Tort Claims filing timeframe requirement, barred the action. The court agreed, holding that the claim filing requirement is not merely procedural, but is instead a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action and is therefore an element of a plaintiff’s cause of action. Additionally, a separate cause of action for sexual battery against the school district on a vicarious liability theory was successfully defended by Mr. Carlson on the basis the district could not be held liable under that theory.
  •  Defense Verdict: 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.
  • Settlement while Motion for Summary Judgment Pending: Plaintiff alleged construction defects in connection with a renovation project at Plaintiff’s hotel and casino in Jackson, California. Plaintiff sued its general contractor and numerous subcontractors, who all cross-complained against each other. The case was a major construction case designated as “complex” by the Court. Our client was a roofing contractor. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and were able to reach a favorable settlement on behalf of our client while the motion was pending.
  • Settlement while Motion for Summary Judgment Pending: In this products liability case, Plaintiff, a woman in her late fifties, was diagnosed with breast cancer. She then purchased and ingested dietary supplements developed by our client, which allegedly caused severe liver damage, and Plaintiff sued. Plaintiff further claimed that because of her liver damage, the treatment for her previously diagnosed breast cancer became significantly delayed and more intrusive, as her doctors were unable to treat the cancer while Plaintiff was hospitalized for her liver. The delay allegedly left Plaintiff with no choice but to undergo a full mastectomy, as opposed to a partial mastectomy/lumpectomy. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client and reached a favorable settlement while the motion was pending.
  • Settlement: Major complex litigation involving numerous parties. The complaint alleged construction defects and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with a large construction project at Plaintiff’s retirement community. Following discovery and mediated negotiations, a global settlement was reached in which we managed to extricate our client for a negligible settlement amount.
  • Settlement: Plaintiff presented himself to a hospital for a severe and life-threatening uncontrollable nose bleed, a condition known as epistaxis. After all other methods to stop the bleed failed, Plaintiff underwent interventional radiology with embolization in which our client’s product was injected into targeted blood vessels to stop the bleeding, which was successful. Plaintiff, however, claimed that upon awakening from the procedure, he was blind in his right eye. Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against our client as well as the physician and hospital claiming that they are responsible for his injuries. Our client settled favorably and plaintiff obtained a verdict against the doctor and hospital
  • Motion for Summary Judgment Granted: In another case, Jeffery J. Carlson 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 vindicated his client and its faculty by obtaining summary judgment against the plaintiffs. In addition, Mr. Carlson uncovered evidence that the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel had withheld harmful evidence and intimidated and tampered with witnesses. As a result, Mr. Carlson 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.
  • Demurrer Sustained Without Leave to Amend: 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.
  • Motion for Summary Judgment Granted: 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 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.
  • Successful Demurrer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: 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.
  • Summary Judgment Affirmed by Appellate Court: 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.
  • Motion for Summary Judgment Granted: 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 educational purposes”.
  • Defense Verdicts at Trial: 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.
  • Demurrer Sustained Without Leave to Amend: 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 Governmental Immunity. Result: Our demurrer was sustained without leave to amend based upon the Statute of Limitations.
  • Trial Win Upheld by Court of Appeal: 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.
  • Favorable Trial Verdict: 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.
  • Successful Motion for Summary Judgment: In 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.
  • Dismissal of Class Action Allegations: 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.
  • Motion to Quash Results in Dismissal: 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. 
  • Successful Opposition to Petition to File Late Claim: 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.
  • Defense Arbitration Award: 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.
  • Successful Opposition to Petition to File Late Claim: 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.
  • Reimbursement for Our Client: 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.
  • Successful Motion for Summary Judgment: We 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.
  • Defeated Class Certification: 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.
  • Dismissal Obtained: 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.
  • Successful Motion for Summary Judgment in Class Action: 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.
  • Favorable Settlement: 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.
  • Waiver of Costs Settlement: 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.
  • Dismissal Obtained: 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.
  • Motion for Summary Judgment Granted: 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.