Plaintiff v. Major Automobile Manufacturer and Dealership
Nov 09, 2012
OUTCOME: Negotiated Resolution
Our team negotiated a favorable settlement at mediation in this complex product liability case. Plaintiff alleged that his truck, which was manufactured and sold by our clients, was defective because ...he believed he placed his truck in "Park," but the transmission engaged powered "Reverse." Plaintiff sustained serious injuries when he exited the truck, which moved rearward and pinned him against a building. We entered mediation with an aggressive defense of the defect allegations and reached a favorable resolution for our client at mediation.
Litigation
Plaintiff v. Major Automobile Manufacturer
Sep 12, 2012
OUTCOME: Negotiated Resolution
Our team achieved a favorable resolution for a major automobile manufacturer in Tulare County Superior Court. This case arose out of a two-vehicle broadside collision that occurred at a 4-way intersec...tion. The driver of the vehicle manufactured by our client was allegedly ejected during the subject accident and sustained fatal injuries. Plaintiffs, decedent's surviving parents, brought an action against our client for product liability causes of action. Plaintiffs alleged that the seat belt system in the subject vehicle was defective and resulted in decedent's ejection and subsequent injuries. We mounted an aggressive defense of the case, attacking plaintiff's causation and damages arguments. Settlement was achieved on very good terms for our client.
Litigation
Retired Telecommunications Workers v. Broker-Dealer
Jul 23, 2012
OUTCOME: Negotiated Resolution
We negotiated a favorable resolution for our client, a broker-dealer, involving four claimants, retired telecommunications workers and their spouses who took early retirement offers from their employer.... The claimants alleged that the registered representative associated with our client gave them inappropriate advice to take the early retirement offer and lump sum, and then gave faulty advice about how to invest those funds by recommending an unsuitable security. We mounted an aggressive defense of the case and reached a favorable settlement for our client.
Litigation
Plaintiff v. Major Drug Retailing Chain
Mar 01, 2012
OUTCOME: Dismissal - No Cost
Sedgwick obtained a dismissal for our client, a major drug retailing chain, in a putative consumer class action involving mouth rinse. The plaintiff asserted violations of California’s Unfair Competi...tion Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), among other claims. The plaintiff filed his complaint parroting an FDA warning letter advising our client and other manufacturers of mouth rinse that fluoride had not been approved for anti-plaque uses and the FDA wanted certain anti-plaque label claims removed. Sedgwick argued the plaintiff’s complaint was an attempt to enforce over-the-counter drug claims under color of state law and was thus preempted pursuant to 21 USC section 379r; the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce drug label claims under 21 USC section 337; and the plaintiff’s complaint failed to meet the specific pleading standards required under UCL and CLRA for claims sounding in fraud. Sedgwick also served a motion for sanctions pursuant to CCP section 128.7 (California’s Rule 11) and calculated the 21-day safe harbor period to expire two days before the court announced its tentative ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Finally, we advised the plaintiff’s counsel that even if we did not succeed on the preemption motion, our next step would be to seek the plaintiff’s nonsuit in a CLRA “no merits” hearing, and if they sought to amend the complaint, then we would move to strike all allegations based on the FDA letter, and request the court to hear our sanctions motion simultaneously with our demurrer or no merits motion. On the last day of the 21-day safe harbor period to dismiss without sanctions, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint with prejudice. This victory is the third and latest victory for our client on this product that the firm has won during the past year. The other two were in Florida and Arkansas.
Litigation
Plaintiff v. Equipment Manufacturer
Dec 01, 2011
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment
Sedgwick obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, a manufacturer of surface and underground mining equipment, in a personal injury action pending in California state court. Sedgwick was succe...ssful in getting the court to apply Texas law, which is significantly more favorable to defendants than California law. While questioning plaintiff at his deposition, Sedgwick elicited testimony that the plaintiff could not say when or where he allegedly worked with our client’s equipment, or if original parts were in the equipment at the time in question. After vigorous oral argument, the court agreed with Sedgwick that the plaintiff could not carry his burden of proof. The court granted summary judgment and awarded costs to our client. Sedgwick then defeated several motions for reconsideration that the plaintiff filed.
Litigation
Plaintiff v. Major Automobile Manufacturer and Dealership
Oct 03, 2011
OUTCOME: Negotiated Resolution
Our team negotiated a favorable settlement in this case arising from a single vehicle accident that occurred in rural Pierce County, Washington. Plaintiff alleged that the power steering system in his... vehicle - a truck manufactured and sold by our clients - was defective. However, during the course of discovery, we learned that plaintiff made no effort to preserve the accident condition of the vehicle despite suspecting there was a defect. Accordingly, we prepared and filed a summary judgment motion on the grounds that plaintiff spoliated evidence to support his defect claim, and that as a result of the lack of evidence, plaintiff could not raise a triable issue of fact on the issues of defect and causation. Plaintiff reached out to discuss settlement shortly thereafter and before the hearing on our motion, and we were able to reach a favorable settlement for our client.
Litigation
Plaintiff v. Automobile Dealership
Sep 16, 2011
OUTCOME: Negotiated Resolution
Our team negotiated a favorable settlement in this product liability action brought against a dealership whom our client indemnified. Plaintiff was an elderly woman who allegedly fell when she attempt...ed to enter her grandson's truck, which was purchased from the dealership. Plaintiff allegedly grabbed the A-pillar assist handle, which detached, causing her to fall. We mounted an aggressive defense of the case and reached a favorable settlement at mediation.
Litigation
Plaintiffs v. Major Automobile Manufacturer and Dealership
Jul 25, 2011
OUTCOME: Favorable Negotiated Resolution
Our team achieved a favorable resolution for a major automobile manufacturer and its dealership in Shasta County Superior Court. Our client was sued by the plaintiffs, whose mother was killed in a fata...l automobile collision which resulted in her vehicle catching on fire. We mounted an aggressive defense of the case, attacking plaintiffs' liability and damages arguments. Faced with a relentless attack heading into mediation, plaintiffs conceded the weakness of their strict liability theory of the case. Settlement was achieved on very good terms for our client.
Class action
California Former Inmates v. State Agency
Jul 19, 2011
OUTCOME: Negotiated Resolution
We negotiated a favorable settlement for our client in a state court class action matter involving two certified classes stemming from the party representative's allegations relating to accounting prac...tices maintained by a state agency.
