San Francisco, CA
Employment and labor Lawyer at San Francisco, CA
Practice Areas: Employment & Labor, Contracts & Agreements
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment Granted
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the defendant in a wrongful termination and whistle-blower retaliation case alleging violations of CA Labor Code section 1102.5. The motion was granted by the San ... Francisco Superior Court on
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment Granted
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the defendant in a 9-count disability discrimination/harassment and retaliation case, also alleging violations of CA Labor Code section 970. The motion was grante ... d by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on May 9, 2013
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment Granted
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of all defendants in an 11-count sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation case also alleging violations of CA Labor Code sections 232.5 and 1102.5. T ... he motion was granted by the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on March 13, 2013
OUTCOME: Affirmed in part, reversed in part on appeal.
Served as trial counsel in 2011 for a large, 570-unit homeowners’ association in the South District, Superior Court of California, in an action to set aside a special fee assessed by the original devel ... oper since 1973. The case went to a multiple-week bench trial, and Shauna’s client won a judgment valued at approximately $95 million (based on the reduced retroactive rate applied and the early termination of the Fee). It was a case of first impression involving California Civil Code section 1098 et seq., a new statute that forbids recurring fees unless certain explicit requirements are met. The case also involved significant lease and contract questions resolved in the association’s favor. Shauna also successfully opposed the defendants’ pre-trial summary adjudication motions, including as to the Civil Code section 1098 and 1098.5 causes of action. (Shauna remained engaged by co-counsel as advisory counsel during the appeal. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with Shauna’s client that section 1098 applied, marking the first time that a California Court of Appeal approved application of the statute. The appellate court, however, applied an exception to section 1098, resulting in further appellate practice now pending. Left undisturbed was the trial court’s finding regarding the original $95 million claim. In an unusual development, the California Legislature declared its intent to overrule the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the exception, confirming that the trial court’s original reading of the law was correct. The legislation was signed by the Governor on October 8, 2015.)
OUTCOME: Ms. Correia secured a total defense verdict on all claims on behalf of Sherwin Williams.
Mrs. Lopez sued Sherwin Williams for negligence, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of a parking lot skirmish between Mrs. Lopez and a Sherwin Williams ... employee. Mrs. Lopez broke her wrist as a result, and claimed the employee, and Sherwin Williams as his employer was at fault; she also claimed that Sherwin Williams' employees intentionally caused ger severe emotional distress by locking their doors and calling police after the incident. Sherwin Williams disputed that it or its employees were at fault or intended to cause any harm to Mrs. Lopez. Ms. Correia represented Sherwin Williams, the defendant.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
