Hamett v. Lance-Kashian & C0., The Marketplace at River Park LLC
Jun 06, 2016
OUTCOME: Mediated Settlement $375,000.00
My client, a 73 year old man in perfect health, was walking on the sidewalk next to Best Buy. One of the slabs of concrete had heaved due to slow root growth next to a planter causing a ledge that meas...ured at lease 3/4 inch. This is a violation of all OSHA and international engineering standards. Mr. Hamett tripped and landed on his right hip causing the neck of his femur to snap. A year later, he underwent hip replacement surgery due to the injury from his fall. Prior to filing a lawsuit, we were offered $62,500. My client's bills at the time were in excess of $35,000.00. We aggressively litigated this case and achieved a mediated settlement of $375,000.00 since trial was a few month in the future.
Medical malpractice
Confidential Birth Injury Settlement
Oct 07, 2013
OUTCOME: Mediation Settlement of $450,000.00
This is a birth injury case where the baby weighed, 10 lbs. 11 oz at birth. The mother was of small stature. During her pregnancy, she presented to her family doctor with many symptoms that placed he...r and her baby at a high risk for complications during birth including shoulder dystocia (this is where the baby's shoulder gets stuck in the birth canal during the birthing process.) The distress can cause severe injury or death and is considered a medical emergency. During the delivery, "Dr. Confidential" applied excessive force to Kennedy's head causing permanent nerve damage to his brachialplexus (the nerves that exit the spine and go to the arms) causing permanent weakness to Kennedy's right arm.
Medical malpractice
Elina Vue vs. Dr. Su Vang D.D.S.
Sep 03, 2013
OUTCOME: $500,000+ judgment for plaintiff
Jury Verdict (11-1 in favor of plaintiff) $500,000.00 dental mal verdict in Fresno on Monday, Sept. 20, 2013. Defense Counsel: John Sillis This case involved a failure by Dr. Su Vang, a general dentist..., to diagnose an abnormality (that turned out to be an aggressive tumor) present posterior to tooth #18 over an 18 month period of treatment wherein Ms. Vue treated 14 times and where x-rays were taken on seven different dates spread out over 14 months. This rare nonmalignant tumor (odontogenic myxoma) is aggressive and destructive. Dr. White testified that there were six major abnormalities clearly present in the initial x-rays that only got clearer over time.
Dr. White did a fine job showing how Dr. Vang repeatedly violated the "safety rules" of dentistry. Unbeknownst to the jury, Dr. Vang was charged with 28 cases of negligence and gross negligence in 2004 to the Dental Board of California. This case IS THE POSTER CHILD for how the Boards protect their encouragably incompetent members rather than enforce their own safety rules. Vang had his license revoked, reinstated with NO time served and then put on seven years' probation with just enough time to cause severe, irreparable damage to my client. This guy was a train wreck: he didn't know the basic definition of "differential diagnosis", "triage" and admitted that he did not know what a tumor looked like on a radio graph.
During the first trial, Dr. Gluskin wouldn't admit to using the term "normal" in dental vernacular, so I researched 5 of his articles where he repeatedly used the term. Also, what helped me get the upper hand on Gluskin is I found his "Endodontic Manual" for sale by a former student of his on Amazon.com and bought it. Inside he details clearly the standard of care as well as all the clinical exams and tests done to determine of a tooth needed endodontic care. I committed him to fact that Dr. Vang failed to do ANY clinical testing or exams on Ms. Vue when he suspected a distal apex radiolucency to tooth #18 and then failed to follow up for an additional 7 months.
With 150K invested in this case, and with one hung jury, and a very deserving young lady as a client, I was highly motivated and as a consequence got only about 3-4 hours sleep per night, but the preparation paid off and the jurors commented that defense experts couldn't hold up under cross (see attached files.) Ultimately the jury found Dr. Vang only 50% liable, with Elina's mother 30% and Dr. Jerry Sorensen DDS 20%. But with my focus on lost wages and future meds (this tumor is almost entirely painless), The award was reduced by only $50,000.00.
Future Lost Wages $350,000.00. (no reduction)
Future Meds: $100,00.00 (no reduction)
Future and past pain, suffering and emotional distress $25,000.00, (reduced by 50% comparative fault from an original $50,000.00)
My last 998 was $104,999.99, so I beat it by a factor of 5x thus allowing $150,000.00 in costs.
Cost of proof damages will be another $200,000.00.
Plus interest: not yet calculated
Total Judgment: Min. $450,000.00.
Personal injury
Vang v. Havlock
May 06, 2013
OUTCOME: $1,300,000.00
A hit and run driver entered an on-ramp of highway 50 which interfered with the driving of defendant who was under the influence. Defendant then collided with Plaintiff causing her multiple bone fract...ures and internal injuries. The case involved complicated issues regarding apportionment of fault between the defendant and the hit-and-run driver.
Personal injury
Sullivan v Marble Mountain Ranch
Mar 28, 2012
OUTCOME: Confidential six figure amount
Ms. Sullivan was on a dude ranch ride at Marble Mountain Ranch in northern California. On the trial ride the string of horses was working its way around a hair pin turn. Ms. Sullivan was the last in ...the string. The lead wrangler (the standard requires a lead and a drag wrangler) ordered the horses to run back to the barn, a cardinal error in trail riding rules. Ms. Sullivan suffered serious injuries and was transported via helicopter to the hospital.
This toughly disputed battle was headed to trial when it was settled during mediation for a confidential six figure amount.
Personal injury
Mao Lor v. Mercury Insurance
Jan 25, 2012
OUTCOME: Settlement of $450,000
Ms. Lor was seriously injured when her car collided with that of a vehicle abandoned in the fast lane. The driver was unlicensed, uninsured and illegal. She asked that her insurance company, Mercury ...Insurance, pay for her medical bills of $350,000 and her pain and suffering. They refused, stating that they believed the unlicensed, uninsured, illegal driver over her. His story was that he was traveling in the fast lane when another vehicle in the lane next to him made some threatening gestures, causing him to swerve and collide with the center concrete median and then come to rest in the fast lane.
Mercury Insurance's reasons for believing the defendant driver was that pursuant to the California "phatom vehicle statute" that there was required at least some minimal touching between the phantom vehicle and Ms. Lor's vehicle. The "phantom vehicle" statute was created in the 1960's to discourage fraudulent claims made by drivers who staged their collisions. But the supreme court stated that an insurance company should always give their insureds version of the facts at least as much credence as any other party.
Ms. Lor hired Mr. Bohn when there appeared to be no other option. Mr. Bohn wrote a 12 page brief to Mercury Insurance explaining that their decision has been in "bad faith" and that they were in fact in violation of the "phantom vehicle statute" by taking the word of the unlicensed, uninsured, illegal driver of the defendant's vehicle. Within two weeks, Mercury Insurance agreed to Mr. Bohn's demand of $250,000 as compensation in full for Ms. Lor. Further, Mr. Bohn was able to negotiate Ms. Lor's medical bill from $350,000 down to $2,500. Because Mr. Bohn only charged Ms. Lor 25% for his services (most attorneys charge 33% on up) Ms. Lor was able to maximize her settlement.
Wrongful death
Ly v Morrison Insurance Services
Aug 31, 2011
OUTCOME: Confidential Settlement
Ms.Ly and he husband were driving south on highway 99 near Stockton California when their car was run off the road by a drunk insurance auditor, Raymond Lee Dale, who was working for Morrison Insurance... Services. Ms. Ly suffered serious injuries which ultimately resulted in her death one month later.
After the collision, Mr. Dale failed to stop and drove home to Fresno, California. Fortunately his license plate was written down by a good Samaritan driver. The police visited Mr. Dale at his home and he was arrested.
Mr. Dale has a minimal insurance policy and was judgment proof. Morrison Insurance Services denied any liability in that they hired Mr. Dale as an independent contractor, which insulated them from any responsibility. During the litigation, Mr. Bohn investigated the relationship with Mr. Dale and Morrison Insurance Co. when he deposed the president of Morrison Ins. Co and was able to prove the essential nexis of contacts between Dale and Morrison which would prove that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor. This case was successfully mediated with a confidential settlement.
Slip and fall accident
Buendia v Seibert Oil
Aug 23, 2011
OUTCOME: Mediated settlement of $275,000.00
Ms. Buendia, a 65 year old retired grandmother, went to the Walker Car Wash to vacuum out her car. As she walked around the front of her car she fell into a two foot deep by four foot wide gap in the ...concrete sidewalk, which has been removed when an old vacuum had been replaced. Ms. Buendia fractured her radius and ulna which required surgery and the placement of a metal plate screwed into both bones.
This missing section of sidewalk was left by the owner because he didn't have the time. He admitted in his deposition that he was familiar with concrete work and could have fixed the section for about $200. Ms. Buendia's fractured radius and ulna failed to heal due to her age and her severity of the break.
Trial was imminent when the parties engaged in mediation with Lee Jacobsen. The parties settled the case for $275,000.
Real estate
Lee v. Lee
N/A
OUTCOME: Verdict for plaintiffs
APPEAL from a judgment of the Fresno County Superior Court. Adolfo M. Corona, Judge.
Law Office of Myron F. Smith and Myron F. Smith for Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of Jeffrey D. Bohn an...d Jeffrey D. Bohn for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
oo0oo
Appellants, George Tong Lee (George) and Kathy Maiker Lee (Kathy), challenge the trial court’s finding that their interest in property owned by various members of the Lee family was validly transferred to respondent, Fue Sue Lee (Fue Sue).1 Appellants acknowledge that, following their request that the property be sold, they received $50,000 from George’s mother and brother pursuant to an oral agreement. Appellants assert this payment was a no interest loan. In contrast, George’s mother and brother contend they bought George and Kathy’s interest. Four years after receiving the payment, George and Kathy executed and delivered a quit claim deed that transferred their interest in the property to Fue Sue.
1 The parties are referred to by their first names for purposes of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
Appellants argue the sale of their property interest violated the statute of frauds and therefore is invalid. Appellants further contend that the quit claim deed was not sufficient to take the transaction outside the statute of frauds. Additionally, appellants assert that the trial court erred when it failed to exclude certain promissory notes that were produced only a few days before trial.
As discussed below, the deed was an executed contract and, as such, validly transferred the real property interest. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the disputed evidence. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In 1985, numerous members of the Lee family pooled their resources to purchase four contiguous five-acre parcels. Appellants owned a 50 percent interest in one of the parcels, referred to as “Lot 5.â€
In 1998, George spoke to his mother, Yeng Yang Lee (Yeng), about selling Lot 5. However, Yeng did not want to sell. Thereafter, George and Yeng orally agreed that George would receive $50,000. Yeng and George’s brother, Vah Houa Lee (Vah), borrowed this money from other relatives and friends. These loans have been repaid. 3
Appellants argued that this $50,000 payment was an interest free loan to be paid back when Lot 5 was eventually sold. However, Yeng and Vah testified that they purchased George and Kathy’s interest in Lot 5. Vah further testified that, despite this purchase, the family wanted George to keep his name on the property because he is both educated and fluent in English.
In 2002, George was facing a lawsuit and decided he should have his name taken off the Lot 5 deed. George and Kathy prepared and executed a quit claim deed conveying their interest in the subject property to Fue Sue. The consideration for the transfer was noted as “GIFT.†Fue Sue is Vah’s only child. George had Fue Sue also sign the deed and then sent it to relatives for recording. George, Kathy and Fue Sue were living in South Carolina at the time. However, before the deed was recorded, someone added Ge Lee (Ge) and Vong Lee as additional grantees.
In 2005, George had Fue Sue execute a deed reconveying Lot 5 to himself and Kathy.
Respondents Ge and Fue Sue filed the underlying complaint against appellants alleging causes of action for quiet title, slander of title, fraud, cancellation of instrument, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and constructive trust.
Following a bench trial, the court found that the $50,000 payment to George was a buyout of appellants’ interest in Lot 5, not a loan. As to the 2002 deed, the court held that appellants did not intend to convey their interest to Ge and Vong Lee and therefore the transfer was invalid as to those grantees. However, the transfer to Fue Sue remained valid. The court further found that the 2005 deed to George was procured by misrepresentation and therefore was invalid
