Jackson & Wallace LLP attorneys Allan D. Gutsche (lead counsel) and second chair, Thomas W. Purtell handled this unusual product liability case in Sacramento County to an excellent verdict. Plaintiff claimed damages from an exploding pool filter that was acquired from and installed by our client, Enjoyable Pools. Plaintiff's counsel, Dreyer Babich, only sued our client as the target in this case as they did not believe that they had a viable case against StaRite, the pool filter manufacturer. We filed a cross complaint, brought StaRite into the case, and developed evidence against StaRite from expert witnesses, and depositions of StaRite's corporate principal and lead engineer.

Presiding over this seven week trial was Judge Lloyd Phillips, Jr. After five days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict, finding our client, Enjoyable Pools, only 1% liable, and StaRite 99% liable. The last demand to the manufacturer was well under the net verdict to them, and the last demand to our client was $1,000,000. The total jury verdict award was $3,261,448. Accordingly, applying the percentage attribution of fault, StaRite's percentage of the verdict, at 99% was $3,228,834, and our client, Enjoyable Pools' share, at 1% was $32,614.

All parties have appealed the verdict and a briefing schedule has not yet been set.

On Friday, September 21, 2007, after less than two hours of deliberation, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned an 11-1 verdict in favor of defendant Valley Crest Tree Company in the case of a 27-year old living mesothelioma patient and his wife. Plaintiff's allegations were that, as a child, he visited the tree company's premises with his father who then worked for the company as a crane operator, and came into contact with debris which included asbestos cement/transite pipe. In addition, household exposure was alleged through plaintiff's father's work for over fifteen years at the tree company yard with allegations of clean up of debris which included AC pipe. Plaintiff's father had died of mesothelioma at age 45. Plaintiffs were represented by Dean Hanley, Bob Barrow and Langston Edwards of Paul, Hanley & Harley and Valley Crest was represented by Allan Gutsche, Gabriel Jackson, Peter Renstrom, Ana Portillo and Todd Thacker of Jackson & Wallace LLP. Plaintiffs called many of the general asbestos witnesses including Drs. Brody, Hammar and Horn along with Barry Castleman, Ken Cohen, Richard Hatfield and Charlie Ay. Defendant's witnesses included pathologist Dr. John Craighead, minerologist Dr. Art Langer, pathologist Dr. Ed Ilgren, economist Laura Dolan and over 20 company and former company employees who confirmed the defense theme that there was no pipe debris containing AC pipe on the Valley Crest Tree premises with which plaintiff or his father could have had any contact. The trial took five weeks including jury selection and pretrial matters as well as rebuttal and sur-rebuttal witnesses and was presided over by Judge Tricia Bigelow. The foreperson was the youngest member of the panel, a female UCLA law student working part-time in the intellectual property department of Walt Disney Studio's Legal Department. Post-trial interviews with members of the jury indicated that they just did not buy the plaintiff's story of remembering transite pipe at Valley Crest's premises when he was 5 to 11 years old. All of the corroborating witnesses to the exposure were family members or former Valley Crest employees with a clear bias against the company. In addition, jury members were stuck by the genetic susceptibility issue in that plaintiff's father had mesothelioma and they felt that if the family had such a genetic predisposition to this cancer that plaintiff could have been exposed anywhere and that the evidence presented against Valley Crest was insufficient to attribute causation to them.

Joanne Blackburn, Managing Partner of our Seattle Office, successfully defended a Tacoma, Washington family restaurant by obtaining a 12-0 defense verdict on 2/22/07. Plaintiffs in this Pierce County Superior Court premises liability action initially sought damages of $750,000 against our client for injuries stemming from an altercation between patrons at the restaurant. After refusing our $10,000 settlement offer the matter proceeded to trial. Despite a mistrial almost being called as the result of certain trial tactics employed by plaintiffs' counsel, the case was eventually given to the jury, which shortly thereafter rendered its verdict. A subsequent poll of the jurors revealed that they were very favorably impressed (and convinced), by Joanne's strong defense. Joanne credits this result to a great team effort by the entire Seattle Office.

On 2/13/2007, Associate Attorney Erin Polisano of the Firm's Sherman Oaks office successfully defended a Bakersfield, California technology services provider in an automotive bodily injury matter heard in a Kern County Court bench trial. Plaintiff pressed our client for special damages following a low-impact collision for which she allegedly received extensive chiropractic care. However, Erin was able to bring into question the veracity of the medical billing - in fact, the State's Department of Insurance had arrested principals of the plaintiff's medical billing company just prior to trial for insurance fraud, amongst other charges. Despite this, plaintiff's counsel still attempted to have one of the indicted medical company's principals testify as to the value of medical damages, which the Court denied following Erin's objections. Thus, as no credible basis existed for quantifying the medical damages, Erin made an oral argument for judgment with which the Court agreed, ruling in favor of the defense. Erin was very ably assisted in this, her first trial, by her Sherman Oaks office colleague Senior Counsel Stuart Supowit.

On November 13, 2006 a Los Angeles County jury returned a defense verdict,
12-0, in favor of Jackson & Wallace LLP clients in an action for professional negligence involving a physical therapist. Diane Coe successfully defended the matter wherein plaintiff claimed that while undergoing physical therapy following a rotator cuff repair, the therapist failed to follow the doctor's prescription for physical therapy and rendered therapy that was too aggressive. Plaintiff claimed that this caused a disruption of the repair of the rotator cuff that had to be addressed by a much more complicated surgery called a latissimus transfer. He was unable to work at his job following the surgery and had limited use of his left, non-dominant arm. Plaintiff’s spouse claimed loss of consortium for the time she had to miss work to care for him post-surgery and because he could no longer help her around the house. The initial demand was $925,000, but was reduced to $100,000 before trial. At trial plaintiffs asked for a verdict of $500,000.

On October 12, 2006, a Multnomah County Oregon jury returned with a defense verdict in favor of Jackson & Wallace LLP clients in a negligence action. Gordon Hepler and Ryan Lee successfully defensed this matter wherein plaintiff left an offer of $200,000 on the table. Plaintiff had the right of way with limited visibility in a
T Intersection collision with defendant’s flatbed truck. She suffered a fractured heel with a compartment syndrome incurring in excess of $200,000 in alleged special damages. There was a 10-20% possibility of a future fusion. Defense accident reconstructionist and computer simulators showed that with limited visibility defendant couldn’t observe plaintiff who, although driving within the posted speed limit, was driving too fast for existing conditions. This verdict was especially satisfying in that plaintiff’s initial demand was significantly in excess of seven figures and she asked the trier of fact to award $1,000,000 without assessing comparative fault.

On August 29, Senior District Court Judge Howard McKibben of the District of Nevada granted a Summary Judgment in favor of a Jackson & Wallace LLP client in a federal copyright infringement matter. In 2004, Plaintiff was invited to join with a J&W client to compete in design competition for a public plaza in the City of Reno. The team won the competition but reached an impasse during contract negotiations. Plaintiff filed for copyright protection of the team's winning design, claimed it owned the design and then filed a complaint in Federal District Court for copyright infringement, false advertising, and a number of state based breach of contract claims. In a hearing before Judge McKibben, Senior Counsel John C. Hentschel argued and convinced the court that plaintiff's claims were not protected under copyright law as they had not advanced their ideas far enough into practical application to warrant protection and that the false advertising claims were deficient as a matter of law. Judge McKibben agreed granting summary judgment against plaintiffs and in favor of the client and the City of Reno. The state based claims were dismissed without prejudice.

On August 2, 2006 a Los Angeles County jury unanimously decided in favor of a Jackson & Wallace LLP client in an action for Breach of Contract, Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation. Partner Lorin Snyder and Associate Shaghig Agopian successfully defensed this matter wherein the plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages against our client, a surrogate parenting agency and the only defendant at trial. Our client administered a surrogate relationship between the plaintiff, a 26 year old woman, who contracted with a couple from Belgium to be a surrogate mother. The plaintiff was hospitalized for a month before giving birth to twins. Several weeks later, the plaintiff’s health insurance company rescinded her health insurance policy alleging that there was an exclusion for surrogacy. As a result, the plaintiff was being held personally responsible for all of the hospital and doctor expenses related to the pregnancy and birth. The plaintiff sued the surrogate parenting agency contending that it breached its contractual obligations to her and intentionally and/or negligently failed to inform her that she could, under any circumstances, be held personally responsible for medical bills.

On July 28, 2006, Partner Allan D. Gutsche and Senior Counsel John C. Hentschel obtained a favorable verdict in a recent mold exposure case tried in San Francisco County. Plaintiff claimed to have contracted chronic lifetime sinusitis from exposure to elevated levels of airborne mold in an apartment owned and managed by Jackson & Wallace LLP clients. After a four week jury trial wherein Plaintiff clamed $500,000 in past wage loss, $100,000 in past medical expenses, future wage loss totaling over $1.5 million and future medical expenses of over $100,000 and unspecified general damages for past and future pain and suffering, the jury returned a total verdict of $108,000. Mr. Gutsche and Mr. Hentschel were successful in limiting both the claims tried to the jury and the Plaintiff's speculative medical and scientific evidence.

On June 6, 2006 a Jackson & Wallace client received a defense verdict in a premises liability action. The verdict turned on the credibility of the Plaintiff, a meter reader for P.G. & E., who alleged that our client’s deck collapsed beneath him as he crossed it to obtain the reading. Although the fact of the Plaintiff’s injury was not in dispute, the jury found no negligence on the part of our client who was renovating the deck when Plaintiff was injured, after the Plaintiff was unable to explain a number of inconsistencies during his testimony at trial. The trial attorney, Senior Counsel Constance Morrison, was ably assisted by Associate Roseanne E. Sullivan and Paralegal Lauren B. McRay

On November 9, 2005 a San Mateo County jury unanimously decided in favor of a Jackson & Wallace LLP client in an action for Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Abuse of Process and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Senior Counsel John Hentschel successfully defensed this action with the assistance of Associate Kristen Lynch, wherein plaintiffs were seeking both compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the alleged constructive eviction from a commercial building owned by our client.

On October 17, 2005 a Los Angeles County jury decided in favor of a Jackson & Wallace LLP client against whom $2,903,000 in damages was being sought. Senior Counsel Lorin Snyder and Associate Richard Chen successfully defensed this employment law matter arising out of the alleged wrongful termination of a 59 year old employee by our client.

On September 2, 2005 a Los Angeles County jury decided in favor of a Jackson & Wallace LLP client against whom $1,000,000 in damages was being sought. Senior Counsel Lorin Snyder successfully defensed this premise liability matter arising out of an alleged trip-and-fall incident in the entryway of an office building owned and operated by our client.

On July 21, 2005, a Los Angeles County jury decided in favor of a Jackson & Wallace LLP client against whom $450,000 in damages was being sought. Senior Counsel Lorin Snyder successfully defensed this premise liability matter arising out of an alleged slip-and-fall incident in the terraces of our client's backyard property. The jury took one hour to decide the case following Mr. Snyder's closing argument.

On June 16, 2004, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found in favor of two Jackson & Wallace LLP clients in a case tried by Jackson & Wallace LLP partners, Mark Sayre and Julie Torres involving a $9 million suit against various defendants in which plaintiff alleged exposure to joint compound and asbestos-containing gasket products. The jury found that as to both Jackson & Wallace LLP clients, neither of those clients' products were defective.

In May 2004 our office received an excellent verdict in a pleural mesothelioma case against a respected Southern California plaintiff firm. Plaintiff, a 73-year-old gentleman claiming exposure to drywall joint compound was awarded $1 million against three drywall product manufacturers one of which was represented by Jackson & Wallace LLP. Our client was assessed only 10% liability by the jury which, after offsets for prior settlements, reduced the client's exposure from plaintiff's original seven-figure demand to a sum under $100,000.

In February of 2004, the Firm tried a single-family home multiparty construction defect suit to a 12-0 defense verdict in Alameda County Superior Court. Our client, a well-known Northern California window manufacturer, was found to be entirely without fault in a case involving miscellaneous water intrusion claims including claims of water intrusion at windows and claims of defect in the window product. The collective pretrial settlement demand to three subs including our client had been approximately $125,000.