Confidential v. Confidential
Apr 01, 2015OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in the United States District Court-Eastern District in a product liability case.
Spencer Peter Hugret's Legal Cases (14)
Los Angeles, CA
Aviation Lawyer at Los Angeles, CA
Practice Areas: Aviation, Litigation ... +2 more
Confidential v. Confidential
Mar 31, 2015OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Successfully obtained full dismissal of all claims on demurrer, on behalf of one of the Big Three auto manufacturers, involving claims of fraud, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act a ... nd claims related to a defectively manufactured diesel engine. The case was venued in Santa Clara County Superior Court. As a result of the Judgment, the client successfully recovered its costs of suit and avoided a lengthy trial on the merits.
Confidential v. Confidential
Mar 30, 2015OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Successfully obtained summary judgment, dismissing all claims, on behalf of one of the Big Three auto manufacturers, involving claims of fraud, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act an ... d claims related to a defectively manufactured diesel engine. The case was venued in Placer County Superior Court. As a result of the Judgment, the client successfully recovered its costs of suit and avoided a lengthy trial on the merits.
Confidential v. Confidential
Mar 03, 2015OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Successfully obtained full dismissal of all claims, on behalf of one of the Big Three auto manufacturers, involving claims of fraud, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act and claims re ... lated to a defectively manufactured diesel engine. The case was venued in Contra Costa County Superior Court. As a result of the Judgment, the client successfully recovered its costs of suit and avoided a lengthy trial on the merits.
Confidential v. Confidential
Dec 23, 2014OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Successfully obtained full dismissal of all claims on demurrer, on behalf of one of the Big Three auto manufacturers, involving claims of fraud, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act a ... nd claims related to a defectively manufactured diesel engine. The case was venued in Contra Costa County Superior Court. As a result of the Judgment, the client successfully recovered its costs of suit and avoided a lengthy trial on the merits.
Confidential v. Confidential
Dec 04, 2014OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Successfully obtained full dismissal of all claims on demurrer, on behalf of one of the Big Three auto manufacturers, involving claims of fraud, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act a ... nd claims related to a defectively manufactured diesel engine. The case was venued in Contra Costa County Superior Court. As a result of the Judgment, the client successfully recovered its costs of suit and avoided a lengthy trial on the merits.
Confidential v. Confidential
Nov 03, 2014OUTCOME: Full dismissal
Successfully obtained full dismissal of all claims by way of a judgment on the pleadings, on behalf of one of the Big Three auto manufacturers, involving claims of fraud, violation of the California Co ... nsumers Legal Remedy Act and claims related to a defectively manufactured diesel engine. The case was venued in Kings County Superior Court. As a result of the Judgment, the client successfully recovered its costs of suit and avoided a lengthy trial on the merits.
Confidential v. Confidential
Apr 14, 2014OUTCOME: Favorable verdict
Background: On Jan. 12, 2011, Plaintiff 2, a construction foreman, was working on the construction of a brand new terminal at San Francisco International Airport. The conveyor belt contractor for the ... project, employed Plaintiff 2. He claimed a conveyor belt he was working on started "without warning," causing his body to be pulled into an approximate 12-inch gap, injuring his pelvis and lower spine. Plaintiffs sued Defendant a computer programming company that designed the baggage handling systems, including the conveyor belts. He also sued the project general contractor, and the electrical sub-contractors. Prior to trial, other Defendants either settled or were let out on summary judgment. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against one Defendant only. Plaintiffs' counsel contended that a Defendant employee activated the subject conveyor belt either without warning or without adequate warning, and without visually inspecting the line before turning on the conveyor belt while Plaintiff 2 was working on the machine. Counsel admitted, from the onset of trial, that Plaintiff 2 was also at fault for failing to "lockout, tag out" before beginning work on the conveyor belt. Defendant denied that one of its employees turned on the subject conveyor belt while Plaintiff 2 was working on it. Its counsel argued that Defendant had no obligation to Plaintiff 2, who was working under the direction and control of his employer, which was also directly controlling Defendant. Injury: Plaintiff 2 was treated by medical services at San Francisco International Airport. He claimed his condition worsened when he went home, causing him to follow up at a hospital. Plaintiff 2 was ultimately diagnosed with a compression fracture of his sacrum and ilium, for which he received some physical therapy. In December 2011, he underwent pinning surgery and followed up with more physical therapy. Plaintiff 2 claimed he is now totally disabled, due to residual pain, discomfort, decreased range of motion, and reduced mobility. He also claimed he can no longer engage in most physical activity, and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression from his near-death experience. Thus, Plaintiff 2 sought recovery of $150,000 in past medical costs, $1 million in future medical costs, $295,000 in past lost earnings, and $2.8 million in future lost earnings. He also sought recovery of $3 million to $4 million in damages for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Plaintiff 1, sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium. Counsel for Defendant contended that Plaintiff 2 was not disabled and had made close to a full recovery from his injuries. Counsel also contended that while Plaintiff 2 can no longer work as foreman, there were several other positions in the construction field that he could perform. Plaintiff 1 sought damages for loss of consortium. Result: The jury determined that Plaintiff 2 was 80 percent at fault, that Defendant was 10 percent at fault, and that Plaintiff 2's employer was 10 percent at fault. It also determined that the Plaintiffs' damages totaled $3,895,220, including $3,395,220 for Plaintiff 2 and $500,000 for Plaintiff 1. After reductions for comparative fault, pre-trial settlements and worker's compensation benefits, the Plaintiffs total recovery was $369,000. Actual Award: $369,000 Trial Information: Judge: Lillian Kwok Sing Trial Length: 15 court days Trial Deliberations: 2 days Jury Vote: 9-3 Jury Composition: 9 male/ 3 female
Confidential v. Confidential
Jun 12, 2013OUTCOME: nominal settlement
Successfully negotiated nominal settlement of a large toxic tort case on behalf of multinational chemical manufacturer after five years of protracted and contentions litigation and on the eve of trial. ... The settlement was for a nominal amount and was accepted while a motion to exclude the opposing expert was pending with a tentative ruling in my client's favor.
Confidential v. Confidential
Jan 24, 2013OUTCOME: Settlement
Successfully negotiated various de minimus settlements on behalf of one of the largest securities broker-dealers in the world related to various private offering investments and debentures. The cases ... proceeded for years and were all settled on the eve of arbitration.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
