San Francisco, CA
Defective and dangerous products Lawyer at San Francisco, CA
Practice Areas: Defective and Dangerous Products, Business ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Full vindication for client.
Santa Lucia sought to enforce arbitration agreements relating to employment disputes; trial court denied Santa Lucia's motion. GWS brought in for appeal, won a full reversal of the trial court's order, ... obtaining an order that all claims be submitted to binding arbitration.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment affirmed. Published/precedential opinion.
Action involved alleged sexual assault by on-duty security officer. Represented respondent security company in trial court and on appeal. Won summary judgment by showing alleged assault did not occur i ... n the course and scope of employment despite the officer's uniformed/on-duty status. Defeated new trial motion based on late-arising evidence of ratification. Fully affirmed on appeal.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment affirmed.
Civil rights claim arising out of citizen’s arrest. Represented respondents on appeal (owners of hotel) after successful summary judgment motion. Issues related to good cause for citizen’s arrest, resp ... ondiat superior, evidence of conspiracy, evidence required to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of Unruh/Banes Act. Summary judgment affirmed in full.
OUTCOME: Affirmed by Ninth Circuit. Published/precedential opinion.
Represented moving company in trial court and on appeal in action, initially filed in state court but removed to federal court, involving alleged failure to ship household goods in interstate transit. ... Motion for summary judgment granted on basis of federal pre-emption under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Carmack Amendment joins those very few federal statutes that completely pre-empt well-pleaded state claims.
OUTCOME: Affirmed by Ninth Circuit. Sanctions awarded against appellant for frivolous appeal.
Represented BART in appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Diversity plaintiff alleged injury when BART train accelerated and she fell. District Court granted summary judgment on Design Immunity. Ninth Circu ... it affirmed in full and granted an award of monetary sanctions against plaintiff for filing a frivolous appeal.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment affirmed in full. Published/precedential opinion.
Represented City of Piedmont in trial court and on appeal in action alleging personal injury arising from a dangerous condition of public property. Trial court granted summary judgment based on recreat ... ional trail immunity for public entities (California Gov’t Code section 831.4(b)), primary assumption of risk, trivial defect defense, lack of notice and evidentiary issues relating to trial court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert’s declaration. Affirmed in full on the basis of recreational trail immunity, finding that the terms “trail” and “sidewalk” are not mutually exclusive terms, trails can exist in urban locations, and trail immunity includes maintenance of trail as well as design and location of trail.
OUTCOME: Affirmed in full. Published/precedential opinion.
Complicated personal jurisdiction case. Defendant Delaware limited partnerships with offices in New York invested in California limited partnership which owned and sold real property which was allegedl ... y contaminated with mold, resulting in need for multi-million dollar rehabilitation of property, loss of income and liability of new owners to tenants for mold-related claims. After sale by California limited partnership, Delaware limited partnerships distributed assets and dissolved. California limited partnership also dissolved, and general partner died. Defendant Delaware limited partnerships’ motion for dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction was granted due to lack of minimum contacts. On appeal, plaintiffs/appellants argued that California’s ability to tax defendants/respondents on their California-derived income demonstrated that California had specific jurisdiction over defendants for purposes of claims relating to that income. Court of Appeal accepted defendants’ argument that while limited partnerships are treated as associations of individual for tax purposes (thereby allowing California to tax their income derived from California investments), they are treated as discrete entities for other purposes, including procedural purposes, and thus California’s ability to impose taxes does not mean jurisdiction exists for other purposes.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
