Phoenix, AZ
Admiralty and maritime Lawyer at Phoenix, AZ
Practice Areas: Admiralty & Maritime, Personal Injury ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Limited potential $50 million verdict to $103,000.
Held Plaintiff's $50 million claim for an alleged traumatic brain injury he claimed he sustained when he was rear-ended by a rideshare company driver to $103,000.
OUTCOME: Judgment for Defendant
The Court held that the State's cause of aciton for unfair competition under Sections 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code ("UCL") was preempted by Section 14501(c)(1) of the F ... ederal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C. 14501(c)(1). The Court found that the State's UCL claim against the Defendant motor carrier was related to the Defendant motor carrier's prices, routes, and services, that it frustrated Congress' intent to deregulate the trucking industry, and that it threatened to erect an entry control to the participation of independent contractor drivers in the industry. Therefore, the Court found the State's UCL claim preempted. In addition, the Court found that under the precedent set by Fitz-Gerald v. Skywest, Inc., 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 913 (2007), actions under the UCL are preempted per se. Therefore, the Court granted Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The State's appeal is pending.
OUTCOME: Default Judgment for Plaintiff
Plaintiff marine insurer filed a declaratory relief action for recission and voiding of the policy of its insured predicated on several misrepresentations the Defendant insured made in the application ... for insurance and during the term of the policy. Defendant failed to plead or defend in the action. Therefore, the Court determined that Defendant violated his duty of utmost fidelity regarding disclosure of material risks, declared the policy void ab initio, and declared that Plaintiff did not owe anyone any sum for damage to the insured vessel.
OUTCOME: Motion to Enforce Settlement Granted
Plaintiffs-in-Limitation filed an action under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 30501 et seq. regarding a collision between two recreational vessels that occurred on Lake Texoma in Oklahoma a ... nd which resulted in personal injuries and five deaths. Several claimants appeared to advance claims. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation settled all of their claims at a mandatory settlement conference. However, two claimants thereafter alleged that they had not agreed to the settlement and had not authorized their attorneys to accept it on their behalf. Said attorneys withdrew, and the claimants btained new representation. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation filed a motion enforce the settlement, which the Court granted. The Court found that claimants had agreed to settle and had authorized their attorneys to accept the settlement on their behalf. It found no conflict of interest or fraud that could be imputed to Plaintiffs-in-Limitation to nullify the settlement. Therefore, the Court ordered the claimants to execute appropriate settlement documents and a stipulation to dismiss their claims.
OUTCOME: Appeal Granted, Reversed and Remanded
Plaintiffs-in-Limitation brought an action under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 30501 et seq. for exoneration from or limitation of liability regarding an accident that occurred involving a ... personal watercraft on Mission Bay in San Diego. Two claimants appeared to move to dismiss the action for lack of admiralty jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that the test for admiralty jurisdiction as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in various cases was satisfied, despite the fact that the accident had occurred in a part of Mission Bay that was reserved exclusively for use by personal watercraft. First, the Court found that the waters where the accident occurred were subject to tidal influences and therefore were navigable. Second, it found that the accident involved by a vessel in navigable waters to a passenger, and therefore presented the requisite potential to disrupt maritime commerce. Finally, it found that the activity giving rise to the accident was the operation of a vessel in navigable waters, and therefore presented the requisite substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Since the Court found that the accident met all of the requirements for admiralty jurisdiction, the Court granted the appeal, reversed the decision of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
