Position: Managing Partner Telephone: 626-744-2020 Fax: 626-744-2001 E-Mail: fsabaitis@sollp.com Download VCard

Frank T. Sabaitis graduated from Boston College cum laude and from DePaul University School of Law. He became a member of the Illinois State Bar in 1980, the California State Bar in December 1983, and the New York State Bar in September 2004. Mr. Sabaitis practiced law in Chicago prior to joining Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley in its San Francisco Office. In 1993, Mr. Sabaitis started and was the managing partner of the Ropers Los Angeles Office. In April 2000, he co-founded the firm of SABAITIS • O’CALLAGHAN, LLP, with Mr. O'Callaghan.

Mr. Sabaitis litigates in several areas of the law, with an emphasis in earth movement, flood, products liability, real estate, commercial and business litigation. He has substantial trial experience in federal and state courts in both Northern and Southern California, as well as in Nevada. Some examples include:

Very recently, Mr. Sabaitis represented V.A.S. S.p.A. in the trial of Perez vs. V.A.S. S.p.A. The litigation involved product liability and negligence claims by Plaintiff for injuries he sustained while using a heavy piece of industrial machinery manufactured by V.A.S. Upon the conclusion of trial, the court entered a defense judgment in V.A.S.’ favor, finding that Plaintiff’s misuse of the industrial machinery was not reasonably foreseeable to V.A.S. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s ruling to the California Court of Appeals, arguing that the ruling was not supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court misapplied the burden of proof. Upon submission of appellate briefs, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of V.A.S. The Appellate Court further ordered that its written opinion in Perez v. V.A.S. S.p.A. be published, representing the first comprehensive, published opinion of California products liability law since the Appellate Court’s 1996 decision in Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th.1.

In the summer and fall of 2008, Mr. Sabaitis served as La Conchita Ranch Company's personal trial counsel in the trial of Alvis vs. La Conchita Ranch Company, et al. The litigation (inclusive of 36 consolidated plaintiff cases) involved the catastrophic landslide of January 10, 2005, which killed ten people and injured more. Mr. Sabaitis handled all aspects of the expert witness presentations/testimony on behalf of the Ranch defendants during the 56 day jury trial. Ultimately, the jury returned a mixed verdict in September 2008, finding the Ranch only partially responsible for the slide, and the matter was favorably resolved prior to the damages phase of the trial.

In April 2004, after a 3½-week jury trial, Mr. Sabaitis obtained a non-suit in the case of Geller, et. al v. Kaufman & Broad, et. al. in Los Angeles County. The construction defect case involved a claim that the construction of approximately 26,000 lineal feet – approximately 5 miles – of retaining walls were defective in that the back drains behind the walls were installed too high, the application of waterproofing material was inadequate and the drainage devices were not properly installed. Plaintiff’s original cost of repair was $23 million. Plaintiff’s presented evidence to the jury that the cost of repair was $11.7 million.

In January 1999, after a six-week bifurcated bench trial on liability only, Mr. Sabaitis received a defense verdict in the case of Brown v. La Conchita Ranch in Ventura County. The case involved a group of 141 individual property owners in the town of La Conchita who filed a suit against the past and present owners of the uphill property, La Conchita Ranch Co., claiming the catastrophic landslide was caused by the irrigation practices of the Ranch. Two other related cases were consolidated for purposes of trial. The exposure to defendants was in excess of $85 million dollars, and plaintiffs’ demand was $23 million dollars to settle the case before trial.

Mr. Sabaitis is a member of the State Bar of California, the State Bar of Illinois, the State Bar of New York, the American Bar Association and Los Angeles County Bar Association. He has served as a judicial arbitrator on numerous occasions in San Francisco and Los Angeles and has presented seminars on construction, earth movement, landslide and products liability related matters throughout the United States. Mr. Sabaitis is an AV rated attorney, a member of The Association of Trial Lawyers of America and The Outstanding Lawyers of America. He was named by Southern California Super Lawyers and Los Angeles Magazine as a "Super Lawyer" for 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, and has been recognized by Pasadena Magazine as a "Top Attorney".

El Escorial Owners’ Assoc.v. Santa Barbara Villas, L.L.P., et al. Settlement of claims against our client prior to a trial that was in excess of 11 months. Geller, et al. v. Kaufman & Broad, et al. Non suit granted April 7, 2004 after a three week jury trial. Rio Vista Village, L.L.P. v. Leidenfrost Horowitz & Associates, et. al., Settlement of claims and recovery of judgments recovered against non-settling subcontractors. Payment Resources International v. The Irvine Company, et al. November 1, 2004: Successful Binding Arbitration Award. Pre-Litigation Demand of $274,626.61 reduced to $250.00 Award after Binding Arbitration. "EARTH MOVEMENT / LANDSLIDE LIABILITY" The recent record setting rains in Southern California this year have created countless areas of land instability which have affected a significant number of homes and continue to threaten more properties in the future. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW ON THE APPLICATION OF INDEMNITY PROVISIONS TO THE JOINT NEGLIGENCE OF A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS Contractual indemnity provisions are critical in determining the extent of liability in a wide range of litigation contexts, including construction defect, earth movement, toxic tort/mold, real estate, business, product liability, premises liability, personal injury, and any other matter wherein a contractual relationship includes such a provision. KINSMAN v. UNOCAL Monday December 19, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Kinsman v. Unocal matter pertaining to landowner liability to employees of contractors for concealed hazards. SABAITIS O’CALLAGHAN SUCCESSFULLY ARGUES TWO WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Sabaitis O’Callaghan is pleased to announce that it recently successfully argued two writ petitions before the California Court of Appeal. The writ petitions requested that the Court of Appeal overturn two Superior Court decisions holding that our client, Far Fabbri, S.R.L., was subject to personal jurisdiction in California. GARIBAY vs. HEMMAT On April 3, 2008, the California Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Garibay v. Hemmat, detailing the evidentiary standards for a motion for summary judgment. (Garibay v. Hemmat, 2008 DJDAR 4626). JOHNSON vs. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC. On April 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., pertaining to whether California should adopt the “sophisticated user” doctrine and defense to negate a manufacturer’s duty to warn of dangers to their product. (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 2008 DJDAR 4701). Juan Perez vs. V.A.S S.p.A In a written opinion issued August 3, 2009, the Hon. Patrick T. Meyers of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Southeast District, entered a total defense judgment in favor of Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A., represented by Frank T. Sabaitis and Brad A. Byszewski of Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP, in a Products Liability/Design Defect bench trial. Jhaveri v. Teitelbaum In a written opinion issued August 12, 2009, the California Court of Appeal held that a statutory release or settlement between a plaintiff and one or more joint tortfeasors is only effective to offset the claims as to the non-settling co-tortfeasors before a verdict or judgment is entered. After entry of a verdict or judgment, a settlement with a co-tortfeasor does not reduce or offset claims against non-settling co-tortfeasors. Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (Marlborough Development Corp., et al. CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT DECLARES THAT TRIAL COURTS DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ORDER PARTIES IN A COMPLEX CIVIL ACTION TO ATTEND AND PAY FOR PRIVATE MEDIATION  View PDF EMPLOYER DIRECT AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY Diaz v. Carcamo California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District 2010 DJDAR 2852 On February 24, 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Diaz v. Carcamo, analyzing whether an employer whose worker caused automobile injury could be held responsible for the injuries under both vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention theories. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER UNDER THE GOING AND COMING RULE Lobo v. Tamco California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District 2010 DJDAR 2827 On February 24, 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Lobo v. Tamco, analyzing an employer’s liability under the theory of respondiat superior where an employee was allegedly negligent in causing an automobile accident while driving home from work in his personal vehicle. Barnett, et al. vs. First National Insurance Company of America In a written opinion issued May 26, 2010, the California Court of Appeal overturned prior case law by holding that a single statutory offer to compromise made to husband and wife co-plaintiffs is valid. Ridgewater Associates, LLC, v. Dublin San Ramon Services District On May 11, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, issued an opinion in Ridgewater Associates, LLC, v. Dublin San Ramon Services District, addressing the potential for recovery in inverse condemnation when a party knowingly purchases a parcel of real property subject to adverse conditions known to cause ongoing damage to that property. People vs. Khaled In a written opinion filed May 25, 2010, the Orange County Superior Court appellate panel ruled that automatic photographs of drivers running red lights are hearsay and, absent sufficient foundation, are inadmissible to support a California Vehicle Code violation. Bozzi vs. Nordstrom, Inc, et al. Please see the attached summary of Bozzi vs. Nordstrom, Inc. in which the California Court of Appeal reaffirms that sufficient factual foundation is necessary for admissability of expert witness testimony. Appellate Decision - Perez vs. V.A.S. SpA. We are pleased to share with you a summary of one of our recent successes, both at the trial level and in the Court of Appeal. The California Appellate Court’s opinion in Perez v. V.A.S. SpA. represents the first comprehensive, published opinion of California products liability law since the Appellate Court’s 1996 decision in Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th.1. Sophisticated Purchase Defense SOPHISTICATED PURCHASER DOCTRINE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS WHEN PLAINTIFF IS NOT THE PURCHASER AND IS NOT AWARE OF DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court Upon a claim for damages based upon inverse condemnation of private property, due to a public entity’s purchase and demolition of adjacent property, the California Appellate Court recently held that the cause of action fails where the homeowner cannot prove that the public entity engaged in unreasonable activity and that the alleged condemnation was part of a plan to convert the plaintiff’s property to public use. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 210. Jones,et al. vs. ConocoPhillips, et al. Jones et al. vs. ConocoPhillips, et al., a products liability action in which the Appellate Court ruled that a claim based upon toxic exposure need not identify a specific toxin to which a plaintiff was exposed, but only exposure to a specific product. Howell vs. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. The California Supreme Court released its long-awaited opinion in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, holding that an injured plaintiff may not recover past medical expenses beyond those actually paid or due to be paid by or on behalf of that injured plaintiff. Attached is a summary of the Court’s decision, including a time sensitive note that may require you to take immediate action. Mansur vs. Ford Motor Company Consumer Expectation Test Cannot Be Used To Establish A Design Defect When Compex Evaluation Is Required Puerta vs. Torres A Statutory Offer To Compromise That Does Not Contain An Indication of How to Accept Is Invalid Riverisland Cold Storage vs. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assocation The Parol Evidence Rule Does Not Exclude Evidence Of A Misrepresentation Of The Terms Contained In A Written Agreement At The Time The Agreement Was Signed J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD vs. Nicastro A MANUFACTURER DOES NOT SUBMIT ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF A FOREIGN STATE BY MERELY PLACING A PRODUCT INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE Adams vs. Ford Motor Company The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court can award to a prevailing defendant all expert costs, whether incurred before or after a CCP Section 998 offer was made.

News & Announcements for this attorney