Summary of Sanchez vs. Strickland in which the Appellate Court ruled that an injured plaintiff may recover medical expenses gratuitously written off by a medical provider
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
Mansur vs. Ford Motor Company
Consumer Expectation Test Cannot Be Used To Establish A Design Defect When Compex Evaluation Is Required
View HTML
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
View HTML
Puerta vs. Torres
A Statutory Offer To Compromise That Does Not Contain An Indication of How to Accept Is Invalid
View HTML
Martinez vs. Los Angeles County MTA
A STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE THAT EXCLUDES “COSTS” ALSO EXCLUDES “ATTORNEY FEES” UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED OTHERWISE
View HTML
De La Cuesta vs. Benham
THE COURT, BY DENYING ATTORNEY FEES ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO “PREVAILING PARTY”, CREATED AN EXTREMELY UNEVEN RESULT IN THE CASE AND THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.
View HTML
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
View HTML
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
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
Super Lawyers 2010 - Rising Star
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce the selection of Brad A. Byszewski
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN BREACH OF CONTRACT / FRAUD CASE
Searay Development S.A. de C.V., et al. v. Amerivest Trust Group, et al. March 5, 2010: Judgment In Excess of $2 Million obtained in Breach of Contract / Fraud Case
View HTML
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.
View HTML
Super Lawyers 2010
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce the selection of Frank T. Sabaitis and Michael T. O’Callaghan
View HTML
SABAITIS O'CALLAGHAN, LLP ANNOUNCES NEW PARTNER OF THE FIRM
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce that Brian C. Merges has become a Partner of the firm.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
WHITE, ET AL. V. HARPER CRIDLEBAUGH, ET AL.
"White, et al. v. Harper Cridlebaugh, et al." holds that unlicensed contractors cannot recover monies owed for work performed, and further may be divested of all monies already paid for such work. This statutory remedy can not be reduced via an equitable offset (i.e. for goods and/or services provided), or through claims of indemnity or contribution.
View HTML
SUPER LAWYERS 2009
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce the selection of Frank T. Sabaitis and Michael T. O’Callaghan
View HTML
View PDF
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).
View HTML
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).
View HTML
SUPER LAWYERS 2008
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce that Michael T. O’Callaghan
View HTML
New Pasadena Office
The Law Firm of SABAITIS • O’CALLAGHAN LLP takes pleasure in announcing the relocation and expansion of its offices to the Firm's newly renovated historical building
View HTML
View PDF
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 HTML
View PDF
SABAITIS • O'CALLAGHAN LLP ANNOUNCES NEW PARTNER OF THE FIRM
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce that Bret A. Lunsford has become a Partner of the firm.
View HTML
SABAITIS O'CALLAGHAN LLP ANNOUNCES NEW ASSOCIATE OF THE FIRM
August 14, 2006 – Los Angeles, California - Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP announces the addition of Christina M. Le to the firm.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
SUPER LAWYERS
Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce the selection of Frank T. Sabaitis and Michael T. O’Callaghan
View HTML
View PDF
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.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
ALEMAN v. LA PUENTE VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Sabaitis O'Callaghan LLP would like to congratulate Michael T. O'Callaghan and Bret A. Lunsford on obtaining a Nonsuit
View HTML
SABAITIS O'CALLAGHAN LLP ANNOUNCES THREE NEW ASSOCIATES TO THE FIRM
October 10, 2005 – Los Angeles California - Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP announces the addition of three new associates to the firm. They include Kelly A. Rody; Melyssa A. Avola; and Brad A. Byszewski.
View HTML
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING MEDIATIONS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CASES
We recently attended a mediation in a construction defect action at Hart ADR in Los Angeles.
View HTML
"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.
View HTML
Voit Commercial Brokerage and Grubb & Ellis v. Lee & Associates
January 27, 2005: Successful Binding Arbitration Award In Amount Of $121,500.00 On Behalf Of Voit Commercial Brokerage and Grubb & Ellis
View HTML
Associate David Moore Admitted to California Bar.
Sabaitis · O'Callaghan, LLP would like to congratulate David V. Moore on passing the July 2004 California Bar Examination. We would also like to welcome him to our firm as an Associate.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
Mesa Vista South Townhome Assn. v. California Portland Cement Co.
On August 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court depublished the opinion in Mesa Vista South Townhome Assn v. California Portland Cement Co., 118 Cal.App.4th 308 (2004). This case can not be cited as authority in any other cases.
View HTML
Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.
On January 8, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of California reaffirmed the proposition that a trial court has the obligation and authority to exclude medical expert testimony that lacks foundation under California Evidence Code section 801.
View HTML
Announcement - Joe A. Bollert and Omar J. Yassin have become Partners of the Firm
Rojas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
All documents and other materials prepared for mediation are off limits to discovery and subsequent lawsuits.
View HTML
Lantzy vs. FNB
Are subcontractors safe from construction defect lawsuits more than ten years after the project was substantially completed?
View HTML
Geller, et al. v. Kaufman & Broad, et al.
Non suit granted April 7, 2004 after a three week jury trial.
View HTML
Eva Geffcken and Alexander M. Geffcken v. Samuel D'Andrea, et al
On April 2, 2004 we settled all claims against our clients for $16,000 new money after a demand in excess of $1,250,000 at the beginning of trial in late March 2004.
View HTML
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.
View HTML
Rio Vista Village, L.L.P. v. Leidenfrost Horowitz & Associates, et. al.,
Settlement of claims and recovery of judgments recovered against non-settling subcontractors.
View HTML