Richard A. Cohn and Casey R. Johnson
Cingari v. Natural Health Sports Therapy, et al.Cingari, et al. v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, et al.
FAILURE TO DEFEND: A CHINK IN THE ARMOR OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXCLUSION
This case stands for the proposition that insurers must think twice before utilizing one of their oldest and most reliable weapons: the professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy. In September 2013, Michael Cingari was the victim of chiropractic malpractice. He laid down on an unstable wooden treatment table that gave way when the chiropractor adjusted his spine, resulting in a traumatic disc herniation. He sued both the chiropractor (an independent contractor at the location) and the facility (which provided the table) for medical negligence. The chiropractor's malpractice coverage had lapsed. The facility had no medical malpractice insurance (due to insurance agent negligence) but tendered the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. The insurer did not investigate and simply denied defense, relying on a broad interpretation of the "professional services exclusion" in the policy that would normally exclude coverage for a medical malpractice claim. However, the insurer failed to consider whether the professional services exclusion would apply when the insured was not the one performing the service. And the insurer never knew about the instability of the table, which arguably would have triggered coverage under the policy. Cingari took an assignment of the insured's bad faith claim against the insurer in exchange for a covenant not to execute on any judgment obtained at trial. Cingari then proceeded to a bench trial and was awarded damages for his lost earnings as well as general damages far in excess of the MICRA cap. Cingari then filed suit against Mid-Century/Farmers Insurance and its sales agent. The claims against the agent were settled, but a judge ruled on summary judgment that Mid-Century/Farmers had no duty to defend due to the professional services exclusion. On appeal, that decision was reversed in 2022, and the matter was finally settled with Mid-Century/Farmers paying a generous settlement.
Dale K. Galipo, John Fattahi, Eric Valenzuela and Renee Valentine Masongsong
French, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
JUSTICE FOR A MAN KILLED BY AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER
Salvador Sanchez, an off-duty Los Angeles police officer, was holding his 1-1/2-year-old son while shopping at Costco in Corona when he was struck from behind without warning by Kenneth French, a mentally handicapped man. Sanchez dropped to the floor, announced he was a cop, pulled his LAPD- approved handgun and fired 10 shots, killing French and seriously injuring French’s parents. Prior to the shooting, French’s mother told Sanchez that her son was sick and asked him not to shoot. After the shooting, Sanchez immediately took out his police ID and showed to the nearby customers, security guards and responding police officers. Sanchez told investigators he believed French had a gun, that he had been shot and that his life and his son's life were in immediate danger, but French was unarmed and was moving away from Sanchez when he was shot. The trial judge ruled that that Sanchez used excessive and unreasonable force when he fired the shots. Although Sanchez was off duty, out of uniform and outside his jurisdiction when he fired the shots, a jury found that he had acted in the scope and course of his employment, thus making the City of Los Angeles vicariously liable for his misconduct, as he had announced himself as a police officer, was authorized and even trained by the LAPD on making arrests and using his approved handgun with a high-capacity magazine statewide while off duty, and would not have been allowed to enter Costco with a gun if he were not a police officer. When the city was denied its motion for a new trial, it appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit’s decision confirmed that an employer can be held responsible for the acts of its employees even when the employee is off-duty and in a different county. The case was settled after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Genie E. Harrison, Mia Munro, Andrea Fields and Nicholas W. Sarris
McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, Inc.
CHANGING A COMPANY’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR WOMEN
Video games maker Riot Games Inc. was sued by a class of women who contended that the company fostered a hostile work environment and toxic work culture, discriminated against women based on their gender when hiring, paid its female employees less than its male employees for substantially similar work, denied women promotions for which they were qualified, and retaliated against women who spoke up about these things. A settlement was negotiated, but the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing both objected that the settlement sum was insufficient and did not contain terms that would bring lasting changes to sexism in the game publishing industry. The plaintiffs then hired Genie Harrison and her team, who then co- counseled with Nicholas Sarris and promptly withdrew from the settlement. After strategically working with the state agencies in additional litigation, including fighting numerous motions to compel arbitration and conducting discovery, a settlement was reached for ten times the previous amount, making it the largest pre-trial equal pay class action settlement in history at the time, on behalf of nearly 1,100 female employees and 1,300 female contract workers. In addition to the monetary settlement, Riot Games agreed to a three-year consent decree that provides for multi-million dollars in programmatic relief, all paid for by the company. The company agreed to fund diversity, equity and inclusion programs and to hire a third-party independent expert to conduct sex and gender equity analysis of the company's hiring and promotion practices. The company will also make 40 full-time engineer, quality assurance or art design positions available to qualified class members who worked as temporary contractors.
Paul A. Matiasic
Womack v. First Access Entertainment, LLC, et al.
A MUSICIAN’S DRUG OVERDOSE DEATH ABETTED BY HIS AGENCY/RECORD LABEL
Gustav Elijah “Gus” Ahr, a musician, songwriter, and model known professionally as “Lil Peep,” saw his fan base increase rapidly during his heartbreakingly short career. On November 15, 2017, Gus was discovered dead on his tour bus outside a venue in Tucson, Arizona, just 21 years old. An autopsy listed cause of death as “combined toxic effects of fentanyl and alprazolam” (common brand Xanax). Just one year prior to his death, First Access Entertainment – the talent agency and record label that oversaw his career – and others dug their claws into Gus, sweeping him up into their world of iniquity, questionable business practices, and profit-driven bad decision-making. He was treated as a commodity rather than as a human being, pushed to the extreme bounds of what someone his age and maturity level could handle emotionally, mentally, and physically. Gus’s mother sued, claiming that his death was a consequence of the unsafe environment on the tour and on the tour bus. In fact, the defendants encouraged and facilitated his drug use and knew he was under the influence of drugs on the date of his death. Never before had an artist’s management team or record label been held accountable for the rampant use of drugs in the music industry, particularly on tour. The court’s rulings in this case established for the first time that music labels and management companies have a duty in the context of drug use by recording artists and that they can’t on the one hand encourage, facilitate, and commercialize artists’ drug use, yet on the other hand disavow their involvement when an overdose happens on tour. On the eve of trial, the case was settled, leaving Gus’s music in the care of his mother and brother, and no one else. Many believe the case has been a catalyst for positive change in the music industry.
Brian J. Panish, Spencer R. Lucas, Matthew G. Freeman andDiana R. Panish
Blair and McGregor v. Moreno Valley Unified School District
SCHOOL DISTRICT TURNS A BLIND EYE TO A CHILD MOLESTER ON STAFF
For 20 years, the Moreno Valley Unified School District employed child predator Thomas Lee West as a teacher, despite having notice of numerous child molestation complaints against him dating back to 1988. After his foster child ran away and alleged molestation, West pled guilty to child endangerment and served jail time on the weekends while he continued to teach sixth grade. When the California Teachers Credentialing Board revoked his teaching credential, district employees were encouraged to write letters of support to get him credentialed again. Brady Blair and Justin McGregor were assigned to West's classroom during the 1996-97 school year. Before the end of the school year, West was sexually abusing both boys, and the abuse continued into the boys' sophomore year in high school. When the sexual abuse ended, West maintained his control over the boys through coercion and threats, preventing them from reporting their abuse. In 2003, after his high school graduation, Brady reported the abuse to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. West was tried and found guilty; he is currently serving a 52-years-to-life sentence. As a result of the abuse, Brady and Justin suffered severe, life-long mental and emotional distress throughout their lives. When they sued the district, the defense liability expert was forced to admit the district fell below the standard of care by not firing West when it learned that he may be a child molester. A jury returned a substantial verdict, finding the district 90 percent at fault. This case has reinforced the duty of school districts to ensure they hire and retain teachers and staff who have been vetted and approved as safe to be around children. Furthermore, this case shows that school districts have a continuing duty to monitor and check the backgrounds of their teachers, so as to not allow a known predator to have supervision of minor children.
Luis A. Carrillo, Michael S. Carrillo, J. Miguel Flores, Annee Della Donna andEric J. Dubin
I.M. a minor, et al. v. Doe CHP OfficersE.W. and L.W., Minors v. State of California, California Highway Patrol and Doe CHP Officers
HE DIED AFTER TELLING OFFICERS “I CAN’T BREATHE” – 14 TIMES
In March 2020, two California Highway Patrol officers pulled over Edward Bronstein on suspicion of driving under the influence. The officers then took Bronstein to the CHP Altadena station for a blood draw to obtain evidence against him. At the station, at least five officers held Bronstein on the floor while pressing against his back while a nurse took a blood sample. A CHP supervisor was present and merely observed and did not order the officers to stop, or to put Bronstein upright. Bronstein had his hands handcuffed behind his back. He told officers he would consent to the blood draw, but the officers continued to hold him down. Bronstein yelled “I can’t breathe!” at least 14 times; one officer called out that Bronstein was turning purple. Nevertheless, the officers continued to hold Bronstein down while the nurse continued to draw the blood. Bronstein lost consciousness, and the officers and the nurse placed him upright, slapping his face instead of beginning CPR. After he did not respond, the officers finally began CPR, but it was too late. Bronstein was pronounced dead approximately four hours after his initial encounter with the CHP. The Los Angeles County medical examiner concluded in the autopsy report that Bronstein’s cause of death was “acute methamphetamine intoxication during restraint by law enforcement.” Members of Bronstein’s family filed a civil rights claim for wrongful death damages for excessive use of force. The CHP would not release video of the incident until ordered to do so by the court, after the plaintiffs’ legal team sought the video through discovery but also through a California Public Records Act request and lawsuit pursuant to the new California peace officer transparency laws. A significant financial settlement was achieved. Bronstein’s death prompted the CHP to change its policies to prevent officers from using techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia.
David M. deRubertis, Susan Rubenstein and Patrice L. Goldman
Callahan v. Marriott International, Inc.
EMPLOYER WOULDN’T ACCOMMODATE LONGTIME EMPLOYEE’S PARAPLEGIA
Dan Callahan worked for the San Francisco Marquis Marriott for 30 years as a concierge. Twenty-five years into his employment, Dan became an incomplete paraplegic as a result of an epidural injection gone bad; his doctors thought he would never work again, but he persevered and was able to return to work a year after the incident. When he returned, he required simple reasonable accommodations. In his fifth year back at work, the hotel underwent renovation that changed the concierge's workstations. Dan’s new workstation did not reasonably allow for seated work, which he required. For the next nine months, Dan struggled to get Marriott to modify the workstation, until he made the difficult decision to quit working at Marriot after 30 years, given the refusal to accommodate by modifying the workstation. Six months later, Marriott laid off, and didn’t rehire, all its concierges during the COVID pandemic. Dan also had an underlying heart condition that would not have allowed him to go back to work anyway, so the lawsuit over Marriott’s failure to accommodate his disability did not seek compensation for lost wages. Rather, the attorneys argued that the ordeal aggravated Dan's underlying chronic pain condition relating to the paraplegia, reactivated his post-traumatic stress disorder that had been in remission for years following his spinal cord injury that caused it in the first place, and ultimately contributed to the downward spiral of his preexisting heart condition. Senior Marriott executives admitted during trial that Dan’s workstation after the remodeling was inadequate. A jury returned a record-setting verdict, most of which was punitive damages. When companies follow the accommodation laws, good workers are able to remain employed and productive, despite their disabilities. The jury’s message was clear: treat disabled workers properly, and provide them simple accommodations when needed, or you will have to answer to a jury.
Jennifer R. Johnson, Susan D. Garbutt and Case C. Barnett
Kim v. Doe ER Doctor and Doe Hospital
ATTORNEY’S INTUITION EXPOSES COVER-UP OF MISSED DIAGNOSIS LEADING TO DEATH
41-year-old Aaron Cua went to the emergency department with sudden onset of severe chest pain and significantly abnormal elevated heart and respiratory rates. He was sent home after less than 45 minutes when a heart attack was ruled out. He had no fever, skin changes or other symptoms at that time. Two days later, Cua went back to the same emergency department in critical condition from necrotizing fasciitis, a rare but life-threatening infectious disease, more commonly known as flesh-eating bacteria. He died the next day, leaving behind a young widow and three children under the age of six. Several attorneys rejected this medical malpractice case against the hospital and emergency physician who first examined Cua because it did not appear the doctor had breached the standard of care. But Jennifer, a former nurse, had a hunch that the doctor altered her medical report for the initial visit. After a hard-fought battle, Jennifer obtained the audit trails for Cua’s electronic medical records. Those, along with phone records, established that when Cua returned, and it was clear the diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis was missed two days earlier, the director of the ER called the defendant doctor at home. While they were on the phone and Cua was in surgery fighting for his life, the defendant doctor accessed Cua’s records from her home iPad and modified her chart note to cover up liability for her missed diagnosis. Jennifer and her team’s skill and tenacity exposed the cover-up and falsehoods to obtain justice for their clients. What had been a seemingly impossible case was settled for a substantial amount at mediation. But before that, the widow told her friends and family that she already had everything she wanted from the case, because Jennifer uncovered the truth about what happened to her husband.
Robert E. Cartwright, Sr. Award
In recognition of excellence in trial advocacy and dedication to teaching trial advocacy to fellow lawyers and the public.
Holly Boyer
Holly Boyer is the recipient of the Robert E. Cartwright, Sr. Award, given “in recognition of excellence in trial advocacy and dedication to teaching trial advocacy to fellow lawyers and to the public.”
Boyer is an appellate specialist and partner at Esner, Chang, Boyer & Murphy in Pasadena. She specializes in cases involving the sexual abuse of children. “I try to educate the courts through appellate work as to the nature of what that looks like, and why it might take a long time to come forward, and why that injury is unlike a broken leg in a car accident. It’s the manipulation and exploitation of a child.” She worked with CAOC’s legislative advocates on Senate Bill 1386, which was signed into law by Gov. Newsom in September. The bill clarifies that evidence of a victim’s unrelated sexual assault or sexual history may not be brought in to impeach their testimony as to consent or damages.
Regarding appellate work, Boyer said, “I think a lot of lawyers cringe at the idea of spending hours in an office alone, researching and writing, and I love it. As appellate lawyers, we have this opportunity to shape the law with a published decision, and there’s law made from it. That’sleaving a footprint for all the other victims, or all the other cases that deal with that issue. It’s like a legacy, creating law that will then shape the outcomes for so many others.”
Boyer is a fierce advocate for meaningful inclusion of children with Down syndrome in general education settings. “My husband and I try to spread the word and educate the community as much as we can about inclusion of neurodiverse children in educational settings and thecommunity – and how it really benefits us all.”
Marvin E. Lewis Award
In recognition of continued guidance, loyalty, and dedication, all of which have been an inspiration to fellow attorneys.
William D. Shapiro
Bill Shapiro has been selected for the Marvin E. Lewis Award, given “in recognition of continued guidance, loyalty and dedication, all of which have been an inspiration to fellow attorneys.”
“I’m old enough to have met Marvin Lewis [one of the founders of CAOC and the organization’s first president] and to have known what he stood for,” Shapiro said. “I’ve been practicing law for 46 years now, this award is one of the highest treasures of my career.”
Shapiro is the founder of William D. Shapiro Law in San Bernardino. Law was not his first choice of career. “I was a physical education major in college, and I had a teaching job all lined up,” he said. “I was running down State College Boulevard in Fullerton one day, and I saw the words on a building: College of Law.” That building was then the home of Western State College of Law. “By the time I hit the next major street, I said, I’m going to go to law school. That was one of the best moves of my life. That’s what I was intended to do, I was meant to be alawyer.”
Shapiro played a crucial role in reestablishing the Consumer Attorneys of the Inland Empire chapter. He was a leader in launching the Palm Springs Seminar, a premier education conference for trial lawyers statewide, in collaboration with CAOC and the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. In addition, he has dedicated over 42 years to serving the Legal Aid Society, mentoring others and showcasing exceptional programming as a way of giving back to the legal profession.
“CAOC is critically important in my life because of what it does for the people I represent,” Shapiro said. “It’s the only California organization that provides the ultimate balance for consumers and their safety.”
Assembly Member of the Year
Asm. Ash Kalra
Assembly Member Ash Kalra (D-San José) is the first Indian American to serve in the California Legislature. As Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and Chair Emeritus of the California Legislative Progressive Caucus, Asm. Kalra has been a leader in ensuring that key legislative priorities are successfully passed on civil rights, criminal justice, economic and worker justice, environmental justice, and housing justice.
Asm. Kalra lives in the same South San José neighborhood where he grew up. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Communication from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a law degree from Georgetown University. As a law student, Kalra taught at inner city schools in Washington, D.C. He returned to San José after law school and has served as a law professor at San José State University and Lincoln Law School in San José.
Asm. Kalra spent 11 years as a Deputy Public Defender for Santa Clara County, representing indigent clients in both felony and misdemeanor matters, and a majority of his time was spent in drug treatment court, where clients were given the opportunity to complete a rehabilitation program and turn their lives around. Prior to being elected to the Assembly in 2006, Asm. Kalra served on the San José City Council for eight years. He has dedicated his tenure in public service to equity and social justice issues.
CAOC is honoring Asm. Kalra for his tireless efforts and dedication to workers and consumers and for his thoughtful leadership and guidance. In 2024 alone, he authored CAOC co-sponsored legislation to protect seniors and co-authored CAOC bills to protect workers and car buyers, both of which ultimately led to the avoidance of major and detrimental initiatives aimed at restricting worker legal rights and at passing an initiative to limit contingency fees. Asm. Kalra is a true partner, and we thank him immensely.
Senator of the Year
Sen. Thomas J. Umberg
State Senator Tom Umberg is the Chair of the California Senate Judiciary Committee. He is also a member of the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the California courts. In addition to his legislative service, he is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, former federal criminal prosecutor, small business owner, and was the Deputy Drug Czar for President Clinton. Sen. Umberg began his military service at the Korean DMZ and was deployed overseas for three tours, totaling over five years. In addition to his overseas deployments, Colonel Umberg wasassigned as a paratrooper with the Army Special Operations Command and the XVIII Airborne Corps.
Sen. Umberg is a graduate of what is now the University of California, College of Law, San Francisco, and has a law practice, Umberg/Zipser LLP in Irvine. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Orange County, he tried numerous white collar and civil rights cases, including tax evasionschemes. During his military career, he tried over 50 felony cases as a JAG officer in Korea, Italy, and the United States. He was recalled to active duty in 2004 as a war crimes prosecutor, and again in 2009 as the Chief, Anti-Corruption, in Afghanistan. In 2011, he was appointed Co-Chair of the U.S. State Department’s Public Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan.
Prior to being elected to the state Senate in 2018, Sen. Umberg served three terms in the California Assembly (1990-94, 2004-06). Between his legislative stints, he was selected by President Clinton to serve as Deputy Director of the White House Office of National DrugControl Policy. In this capacity, he was responsible for the development and coordination of United States policy to reduce the supply of illegal drugs, including negotiation and coordination with foreign governments to enhance U.S. counter‐drug intelligence and interdiction.
AWARDS DINNER INFO
HEALTH & SAFETY
CANCELLATIONS