California Verdicts
CA • 2013-05-16
In the case of Biancalana v. T.D. Service Co., the California Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of a trustee's sale in a nonjudicial foreclosure. The dispute arose when the trustee, T.D. Service Co., conducted a foreclosure sale of a property owned by David Biancalana. Biancalana attended the auction and was the highest bidder, but the trustee later voided the sale, citing an inadequate opening bid. The court examined whether the trustee had the authority to rescind the sale based on the inadequacy of the bid and procedural irregularities. The ruling emphasized that a trustee can void a sale if there is gross inadequacy of price and procedural irregularities, even if the bidder is not prejudiced. This decision clarified the circumstances under which a trustee may exercise discretion to void a foreclosure sale. ()
Sources:
scocal.stanford.edu
CA • 2005-01-01
In the case of Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of California, Inc., Sarah Jane Schauer sued the jewelry store after discovering that the engagement ring purchased by her former fiancé, Darin Erstad, was of lesser quality than represented. The ring was sold with specific carat and clarity grades, but an independent appraisal revealed discrepancies, indicating the ring's actual value was significantly lower. Schauer filed claims for breach of contract, rescission, and fraud. The trial court dismissed her claims, stating she was neither the purchaser nor a third-party beneficiary of the contract. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, allowing Schauer to proceed with her breach of contract claim as a third-party beneficiary, given that the ring was purchased explicitly for her benefit. ()
Sources:
casetext.com
CA • 2024-11-27
In the case of Sarah Freeman v. Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce, LLC, Bitchin’ Beach Club, LLC, and Starr Edwards, the plaintiff, Sarah Freeman, alleged violations of labor laws, including sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. The jury rendered a verdict on November 27, 2024, in favor of Freeman. The case involved serious allegations against the defendants, leading to a legal battle that concluded with the jury's decision. ()
Sources:
juryverdictalert.com
CA • No Date
The case titled "Heng Zhang v. Brendon Farrell" was filed on October 31, 2019, in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, under case number 19-CIV-06457. The nature of the dispute is classified as "Complex Civil Unlimited," indicating a complex civil matter. As of the latest available information, the case status is active, with no specific details about the claims, defenses, or any motions filed. The docket does not provide further insights into the case's developments or the parties' positions.
CA • 2024-12-31
In 2024, the case "Feld v. San Diego Chiropractic Neurology by Albinder & Jahangiri APC, et al." resulted in a significant jury award of $8,924,000. The lawsuit involved allegations of medical malpractice, personal injury, and professional negligence against the defendants, including San Diego Chiropractic Neurology by Albinder & Jahangiri APC. The plaintiff, Daniel Feld, claimed that the defendants' actions led to a brain injury due to failure to treat, resulting in bodily harm. The case was filed in San Diego County, California, and concluded with the jury's verdict in 2024. ()
Sources:
topverdict.com
CA • 2022-03-25
In 2013, Tamara Evans, a Law Enforcement Consultant II at the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), alleged she was terminated in retaliation for reporting misconduct related to grant funding. Evans had overseen federal funding for law enforcement training courses with the San Diego Regional Training Center (SDRTC). She reported to her superiors and the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) that SDRTC had submitted false invoices for reimbursement. Following these reports, Evans faced adverse employment actions, including reassignment, demotion, and ultimately termination. She filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint, which was consolidated with her appeal of termination. The court found no evidence of fraud or false claims by SDRTC or POST, determining that the invoices were budget-based and both parties were aware of this arrangement. Consequently, Evans's claims were dismissed, and her motion for summary judgment was denied. ()
Sources:
casetext.com
CA • No Date
In the case of Mitrione v. Breg Inc., Rebecca Mitrione filed a lawsuit against Breg Inc., a medical device manufacturer, alleging that the company's Polar Care Glacier pain pump device caused her significant injuries. The Polar Care Glacier is designed to deliver continuous cold therapy to patients post-surgery. Mitrione contended that the device's design was defective and that Breg Inc. failed to provide adequate warnings regarding potential risks associated with its use. The legal proceedings involved extensive discovery disputes, including a motion for a protective order filed by Breg Inc. to prevent the deposition of former CEO Bradley Mason. The court denied this motion, emphasizing the necessity of Mason's testimony due to his unique knowledge about the device's design and marketing. In March 2024, the court tentatively ruled that Mitrione's total damages were approximately $2 million, considering both economic and non-economic factors. The case highlights ongoing concerns about the safety and regulatory oversight of medical devices, particularly those intended for post-operative care.
CA • 2024-06-01
Angel Aguirre, a stagehand at the Rolling Loud Festival in Oakland, suffered severe injuries when his right hand was crushed by a moving forklift operated by another stagehand. The accident resulted in nerve and tendon damage, leading to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), a debilitating chronic pain condition. Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, LLP represented Aguirre in a lawsuit against AEG Management Oakland, LLC and Tommy Harman. The jury awarded Aguirre $8.29 million in damages, recognizing the significance of the case for workplace safety and liability law. ()
Sources:
aswtlawyers.com
CA • No Date
In August 2023, Martinez police officers responded to a burglar alarm at a cannabis dispensary. During the incident, two brothers, Tahmon and Tommy Wilson, fled the scene in a sedan. Officers fired into the vehicle, fatally injuring Tahmon and severely wounding Tommy, both unarmed. The Wilson family filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Martinez and the involved officers, alleging unlawful use of force. The California Department of Justice is conducting an independent investigation into the officers' actions. ()
Sources:
cbsnews.com
CA • 2018-03-12
In the case of Desoto Cab Company, Inc., doing business as Flywheel Taxi, versus the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Flywheel, a traditional taxi service, challenged the CPUC's regulation of transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft. Flywheel argued that the CPUC's less stringent regulations for TNCs violated equal protection rights by creating an unfair competitive advantage. The court dismissed the case, stating that Flywheel lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the CPUC's jurisdiction over TNCs. The court noted that subsequent legislative amendments ratified the CPUC's regulation of TNCs, rendering Flywheel's claims moot. ()
Sources:
caselaw.findlaw.com
CA • 2024-10-23
In October 2022, six former employees of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination after being terminated for refusing to comply with BART's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The plaintiffs contended that BART failed to accommodate their sincerely held religious beliefs opposing vaccination. In July 2024, a federal jury found that BART had not sufficiently attempted to accommodate the employees' religious objections, leading to a partial mistrial. A retrial commenced in October 2024, during which the jury awarded over $7.8 million in damages to the plaintiffs, concluding that BART had indeed discriminated against them. The case underscores the complexities of balancing public health mandates with religious freedoms in the workplace. ()
Sources:
news.bloomberglaw.com
CA • 2024-04-16
In September 2019, 58-year-old Jaime Soria, who had spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, was admitted to Antelope Valley Hospital in California for aspiration pneumonia and severe sepsis. Due to swallowing difficulties, he was placed on a 'nothing by mouth' (NPO) restriction. On September 24, 2019, a food tray was mistakenly delivered to his room. After inquiring about its safety, Jaime's mother fed him from the tray. He immediately began coughing, gagging, and vomiting, leading to aspiration into his lungs. Jaime passed away on September 26, 2019. His mother, Celia Soria, and sister, Lilia Soria Trujillo, filed a lawsuit against the hospital, a nurse, Compass Group USA, Inc. (the hospital's contracted food and nutrition manager), and one of Compass's catering associates. The trial court ruled that certain allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint constituted binding admissions and instructed the jury accordingly. The court also determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. The jury awarded $8 million in damages to Celia Soria, as the successor in interest to Jaime. Compass filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted the motion for a new trial in part, finding the damage award excessive. ()
Sources:
case-law.vlex.com
CA • No Date
I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Cozen, et al. v. RDK Ventures, LLC." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. For instance, Cozen O'Connor, a law firm, has been involved in various legal matters, including representing clients in cases like "Kilbride Invs. Ltd. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Pa., Inc." and "R D K Properties LLC v. Covington Specialty Insurance Co." However, there is no direct connection between Cozen O'Connor and RDK Ventures, LLC in the available records.
CA • 2024-09-13
The case "Lopez, et al. v. Yoon, et al." involves a legal dispute between the plaintiffs, identified as Lopez and others, and the defendants, identified as Yoon and others. The specific details of the case, including the nature of the claims, the events leading to the lawsuit, and the legal issues at stake, are not readily available in the provided search results. Without access to the full case documents or more detailed information, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive summary of the case. For a more thorough understanding, consulting legal databases or court records would be advisable.
CA • 2025-06-26
I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Maldonado v. Butt, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll be glad to assist you further.
CA • 2005-09-15
The case "Estate of Kaczynski v. Tobias, et al." pertains to the estate of Theodore John Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, and involves legal proceedings concerning the sale of his personal effects to satisfy restitution orders for his victims. Following Kaczynski's conviction for multiple bombings, the government sought to enforce restitution by selling his property. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the matter, emphasizing the need for a commercially reasonable plan to dispose of the property to maximize monetary return to the victims. The court remanded the case to the district court to develop such a plan, highlighting the importance of victim compensation in the enforcement of restitution orders. ()
Sources:
law.justia.com
CA • 2024-03-22
The case "Estate of Senesac v. Riverside Med. Ctr., et al." involves a legal dispute where the estate of an individual named Senesac filed a lawsuit against Riverside Medical Center and other associated parties. The specifics of the allegations and the legal issues at stake are not detailed in the available sources. Without access to the full case documents or more detailed information, it's challenging to provide a comprehensive summary of the case's background, the claims made, and the legal arguments presented. The case may pertain to medical malpractice, wrongful death, or other healthcare-related legal matters, but further details are necessary to confirm this.
CA • 1994-12-20
The case of "Cosentino v. Viloria, et al." involves a legal dispute between Alex Cosentino and Coastal Construction Company. In 1977, Coastal Construction sold a residential lot to Louis and Edith Cosentino, financing the sale with a $20,000 purchase money note secured by a deed of trust. The note was due on February 26, 1978, but the Cosentinos failed to make the payment. After Louis Cosentino's death in 1991, the property was transferred to his brother, Alex Cosentino. Coastal Construction then initiated foreclosure proceedings on the deed of trust. Alex Cosentino filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, arguing that the enforcement of the deed of trust was barred by California Probate Code section 9391, which requires creditors to file a claim with the decedent's estate and waive recourse against other property in the estate. The trial court ruled in favor of Cosentino, enjoining Coastal Construction from foreclosing on the deed of trust. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Probate Code section 9391 did not apply to private nonjudicial foreclosures brought under a power of sale to enforce a deed of trust. ()
Sources:
law.justia.com
CA • No Date
The case "Buchner, et al. v. The Thirsty Beaver" does not appear in the available legal databases or search results. It is possible that the case title is incorrect, incomplete, or pertains to a non-public matter. Without more specific information, such as the jurisdiction, case number, or additional context, it is challenging to provide a detailed summary or legal analysis. If you can provide more details or clarify the case title, I would be happy to assist further.
CA • 2010-04-06
In the case of Bigge Crane v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Paul Hunt, an employee of Bigge Crane & Rigging Co., was injured while assisting in the dismantling of a truck crane at a Chevron oil refinery. Hunt was directed by the general foreman, Curtis Embry, to assist crane operator Mark Mom in the dismantling process. During this task, a section of the crane's boom fell, injuring Hunt's lower leg and ankle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded Hunt additional compensation, ruling that his injuries were caused by "serious and willful misconduct" on the part of both Mom and Embry, who were considered "managing officers" of Bigge Crane. Bigge Crane contested the award, arguing that Mom was not a "managing officer" and that Embry's actions did not constitute "serious and willful misconduct." The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and annulled the award, concluding that Mom was not a "managing officer" and that Embry's actions did not meet the standard for "serious and willful misconduct."
CA • 2022-03-24
I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Ramirez v. Barrix, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll be happy to assist you further.
CA • 1971-03-10
In 1967, Robert Sherman rented his schooner, the Penida, to Richard Harris for a voyage to the Galapagos Islands. Harris agreed to pay for the marine insurance and the vessel's seaworthiness. They approached Arthur Pendleton of Coates & Dorsey, Inc. to obtain insurance. However, Sherman and Harris did not disclose to Pendleton that Harris would pay Sherman for the vessel's use or that the voyage had a commercial purpose. Coates & Dorsey issued a policy with a private pleasure warranty, which did not cover the loss incurred during the voyage. Sherman sued Coates & Dorsey for negligence in issuing the policy and failing to inform Continental Insurance Company of the vessel's commercial use. The jury ruled in favor of Sherman, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.
CA • 2014-06-05
I couldn't find specific information about the case "Oleksyn, et al. v. Quintero, et al." in the available sources. However, there are several legal cases involving individuals named Quintero. For instance, in "United States v. Quintero-Felix," the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The court upheld the denial, stating that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on the defendant's nervous behavior and conflicting travel stories. Another case, "Quintero v. City of Escondido," involved allegations against police officers for unlawful entry, arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. The court discussed the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. These cases highlight various legal issues, including Fourth Amendment rights and qualified immunity.
CA • 2023-09-11
In the case of Daniel Herrera v. National Vision, Inc., filed on June 2, 2023, in California Superior Court, Herrera alleged that National Vision violated various labor laws, including failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing required meal and rest periods, and issuing inaccurate wage statements. The class was defined as hourly or non-exempt employees of National Vision in California from June 2, 2019, to the present. On July 24, 2023, National Vision removed the case to federal court. Prior to this, on September 20, 2022, another class action lawsuit, Maisnier v. National Vision, Inc., had been filed in the Northern District of California, asserting similar claims regarding wage and hour violations. The court denied a joint stipulation to stay the Herrera case and ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of California under the first-to-file rule. After considering the parties' responses, the court dismissed the Herrera action without prejudice on September 11, 2023.
CA • 1957-01-01
In the case of Edwards v. Curry, 152 Cal.App.2d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957), George F. Edwards, a roofing subcontractor, was hired by general contractor I.C. Curry to provide roofing labor and materials for a school project at a total cost of $20,007. Edwards paid his employees less than the required wage scale, leading to his removal from the contract. Due to adverse weather, Curry assigned the remaining work to another contractor, Clark, who completed it at a cost of $7,624.65. Edwards sued Curry for the remaining balance under the contract, while Curry filed a cross-complaint against Edwards and material supplier J.S. Schirm Company for various damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, granting Edwards a reduced amount after appropriate deductions for payments made to Schirm and the work completed by Clark. The court also held that Edwards remained liable to Schirm despite the joint payment arrangement, as Schirm had not been fully compensated. ()
Sources:
law.justia.com
CA • 1995-05-19
In 1985, Dr. Donald Buehler invested $100,000 as a limited partner in BD Ltd., a limited partnership formed to purchase the Cloverleaf Apartments in Texas for $767,000. The general partner, James Parrish, had previously owned the property and believed it could be acquired out of foreclosure. Before finalizing the transaction, Buehler signed a loan guarantee and an agreement to contribute additional funds under certain conditions. Over the following years, Buehler provided additional funds and was sued on the guarantee, resulting in a total loss exceeding $700,000. Buehler filed a legal malpractice action against attorney Robert Sbardellati, alleging negligence in handling the investment. The jury found in favor of Sbardellati, determining he was not negligent. Buehler appealed, but the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict, concluding there was no error in the trial court's instructions or in the jury's findings. ()
Sources:
caselaw.findlaw.com
CA • 1984-07-01
I couldn't find any information on a case titled "Pollnitz v. State Farm." It's possible there might be a typographical error in the case name. Perhaps you are referring to "Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co." (747 F.2d 863, 1984). In this case, Athena and Lefteri Poulis sued State Farm after a home fire, seeking payment under their insurance policy. State Farm denied coverage, alleging the Poulises intentionally caused the fire and misrepresented information. The district court dismissed the case due to the Poulises' failure to comply with discovery orders. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal, noting the Poulises were not responsible for the non-compliance. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, finding no appropriate alternative sanctions. The Poulises appealed again.
CA • 1974-12-16
In the case of Ybarra v. Macifjewski, et al., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging de jure segregation by the San Jose Unified School District. The district court had dismissed the case based on a prior ruling in Diaz v. San Jose Unified School District, asserting that plaintiffs could not demonstrate de jure segregation. The Ninth Circuit found this dismissal improper, emphasizing that the Diaz ruling was not a final determination and did not bind all plaintiffs in the current action. The court's decision underscored the necessity for a thorough examination of the allegations to determine the presence of de jure segregation. ()
Sources:
law.resource.org
CA • 2012-12-26
In the case of Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2012), Eudesimo Arteaga, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1993. She married Jesus Alvarez, a lawful permanent resident, in 2003, and Alvarez filed a petition to immigrate Arteaga in 2005. Arteaga applied for cancellation of removal, citing the hardship her U.S. citizen children would face if she were deported. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application, determining that the hardship did not meet the "exceptional and extremely unusual" standard required for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Arteaga's appeal, affirming the IJ's decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the BIA's decision, concluding that the IJ did not err in denying the application based on the presented evidence. ()
Sources:
casetext.com
CA • No Date
The case of "Guido v. Patel, et al." involves a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Guido, and the defendants, Patel and others. The specific details of the case, including the nature of the claims, the court's decision, and the verdict date, are not readily available in the provided search results. Without access to the full case documents or more detailed information, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive summary of the case.
