E.C.H. v. Nexcycle, Inc. d/b/a 20/20 Recycle Center
Jun 13, 2006
OUTCOME: Defense obtained rare dismissal for lack of prosecution from Judge.
Plaintiff's prior attorney demanded $50,000 to settle case. Disputed liability case. Plaintiff fired his attorney, because he wanted more
money. Defendants aggressively litigated this case. Plaintiff ...eventually abandoned claim. Defendants filed petition to dismiss claim for
lack of prosecution, and won a rare dismissal from a conservative judge. Defendants successfully defended this frivolous lawsuit. Employer, Nexcycle, Inc. d/b/a 20/20 Recycle Center, successfully defended by Manning & Kass et al. LLP.
Workers compensation
B. P. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
Aug 04, 2005
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict on all counts after trial. Judge dismissed plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff claimed to have injured his knee while playing football, and was asserting that it was work-related. Settlement offers refused. Proceeded to trial on July 22, 2005. Defendants Best Buy Co., I...nc. successfully represented by Manning & Kass et al. LLP.
Workers compensation
J. M. v. Go Go Cafe
Apr 20, 2005
OUTCOME: Defendants obtained excellent settlement short of trial.
Uninsured employer case, where the plaintiff alleged a work-related injury. Disputed liability claim. Employer's affirmative defense was a post-termination defense and intoxication defense. UEF filed l...ien against the employer's property. Notwithstanding high medical treatment on claim, and high exposure on claim, defendants were able to settle claim for nominal amount, and removed UEF's lien from the employer's property.
Defendants, Go Go Cafe, successfully represented by Manning & Kass et al. LLP.
Workers compensation
W.B. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
Mar 23, 2004
OUTCOME: Nominal/Excellent Settlement.
Serious and Willful and Labor Code Section 132a claim filed by the plaintiff. Nominal settlement reached in favor of defendants. Best Buy Co., Inc. successfully represented by MKERT.
Workers compensation
J. C. v. Allegis Group, Inc. et al.
Mar 06, 2003
OUTCOME: Defendants successfully settled workers' compensation claim for less than value of case, and plaintiff-in-intervention successfully recovered its lien.
This claim involved both a third party claim, a subrogation action, and a workers’ compensation lien. This was an extremely complex case with multiple issues re: liability, and exposure. At the mediati...on hearing, the third party case settled for $885,000. Underlying workers’ compensation claim settled for less than the value of the claim, based on the medicals. Of the settlement amount, Plaintiff-in-intervention in the subrogation action was able to recover $94,000 of its lien, which was more than anticipated given the adverse set of facts. Plaintiff-in-intervention and Defendant, Specialty Risk, Inc./Allegis Group, Inc., were successfully represented by Manning & Kass.
Employment and labor
D. P. v. Nexcycle, Inc.
Jan 07, 2003
OUTCOME: Settlement before trial. Discovery was limited to deposition only. Settled favorably at time of deposition.
The alleged date of injury was September 24, 2002. This was a wrongful termination claim with issues of L.C. 132a, workers' compensation benefits, DFEH complaints, and a potential civil complaint again...st the employer, which had a potential exposure of six figures. At the time of the deposition of the plaintiff, on December 12, 2002, due to aggressive cross-examination with respect to the inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony, the case settled for $16,000 on January 7, 2003. Client was extremely happy with the result given the adverse set of facts on the case and the potential exposure. Defendant Nexcycle was successfully represented by Manning & Kass.
Contracts and agreements
Aerotek/Onsite Commercial Staffing v. Royal Roofing Company, Inc.
Mar 21, 2002
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict at Binding Arbitration.
Extremely complex contract case with disputed liability. At the time of binding arbitration, counsel for Aerotek/Onsite Commercial Staffing had two (2) attorneys present with more than eight (8) witnes...ses, including firefighters and police to prove their point. Their arbitration brief, alone, was measured in feet, not inches. This Unlimited Jurisdiction Civil matter arises out of a contractual dispute surrounding a September 15, 1999 contract, wherein it was agreed that plaintiff Aerotek/Onsite Commercial Staffing, as an Independent Contractor, would pay for workers’ compensation benefits resulting from a work-related injury to its contract employees. Mr. Eduardo Loya was injured while working at one of defendant Royal Roofing Company’s commercial jobsites. Mr. Loya was plaintiff Aerotek/Onsite Commercial Staffing’s employee when he sustained a work-related injury on October 5, 1999. As a result of this work-related injury, plaintiff Aerotek/Onsite Commercial Staffing was required, pursuant to the September 15, 1999 Agreement, to pay workers’ compensation benefits.
The arbitrator found that "pursuant to the express and unambiguous terms of paragraph 3 of the September 15, 1999 Service Agreement, the allocation of risk for workers’ compensation benefits payments was placed squarely on Onsite Commercial Staffing."
The Arbitrator found that this was the mutual expectation of both parties. At the time of the creation of the contract, as indicated in paragraph 3 of this Service Agreement, Royal Roofing had a reasonable expectation that all workers’ compensation benefits payments would be made by Onsite Commercial Staffing in the event that a contract employee was injured at a Royal Roofing job-site. Pursuant to California Insurance Code Section 11663, Cambridge Integrated Services Group, as the insurer of the general employer, Onsite Commercial Staffing, is liable for the entire cost of compensation payable to Onsite’s injured contract employee, Eduardo Loya. Neither Onsite or Cambridge is entitled to reimbursement from Royal Roofing for workers’ compensation benefits already paid out to its injured contract employee as a result of the October 5, 1999 injury. Amount at issue was in excess of $250,0000., excluding current medical benefits and indemnity. Verdict in favor of Royal Roofing. Manning & Kass successfully represented Royal Roofing. MKERT showed up at the time of arbitration without any arbitration brief, relying, instead, on the clear language of the contract itself. Arbitrator adopted MKERT's proposed decision and order in its entirety: that is, MKERT drafted the language of the decision with which the arbitrator simply signed his name in complete agreement with the law & facts. Arbitrator was highly regarded former federal judge, selected through JAMS.
Workers compensation
L. B. v. Smart & Final
Dec 20, 2001
OUTCOME: Defense verdict after trial.
Claim of work-related injury. Plaintiff's counsel disagreed with monetary analysis of the experts, refused to compromise claim, and proceeded to trial. At trial, defendants argued that its own
expert... was the more credible of all the experts, even more substantial and more credible than the treating physician's own reports. Matter proceeded to trial. Plaintiff's counsel thought case was worth more than $50,000. Defendants
disagreed, based on the evidence. The Sacramento trial judge agreed with defendants, and awarded nominal damages of $3,213. Smart & Final successfully represented by Manning & Kass et al. LLP.
