A tragedy at a family outing on Grandview Beach in Encinitas in 2019: a huge, multi-ton block of sandstone overlooking the beach collapsed and crushed three remarkable women in the presence of their children and family members. After conducting dozens of depositions and going through tens of
thousands of documents, Bibi Fell discovered that this tragedy was not a random act of nature but the predictable result of development that city officials had been warned about. Scientists and engineers had explicitly described what was needed to mitigate the risks of block falls and cliff collapses, and they told officials that the area where the women were killed was an “acknowledged hazardous area” where “additional injuries would occur.” State officials also knew; a bluff collapse in 1983 destroyed the beach’s access stairs and injured three people. The state’s geologist then recommended the stairs not be
rebuilt because it would result in more injuries. But the stairs were rebuilt, and there was just one warning sign placed for beachgoers to see on their way onto the beach – and it was covered by a trash can. Fell overcame multiple claims of immunity and four motions for summary judgment to win not
only financial compensation for the victims’ families but also the city’s agreement to make a series of crucial safety changes, including increased signage warning about the dangers of unstable bluffs at all Encinitas beach access points; a webpage warning of the dangers of bluff collapse hosted on the city’s
website; a QR code at beach access points that links to the bluff warnings; enhanced lifeguard training focused on bluff safety; and development of written policies for lifeguards regarding bluff-related hazards. These actions aim to ensure that the tragedy is not repeated and that all necessary precautions
are taken to protect residents and visitors along the coastline.

This heartbreaking case is already reshaping nationally how courts view a bystander’s emotional trauma. A mother (Jayde Downey) was on the phone with her teenage daughter, giving driving directions, when she heard the terrifying sounds of tires screeching, metal crunching, and then complete silence. For
several minutes, a panicked mother, fearing the worst, screamed her daughter's name to no response, until she heard a stranger's voice on the phone instructing her to be quiet so he could check for a pulse. Downey wasn’t physically present at the crash site, but she clearly suffered every horrifying moment in real time. Downey sued several defendants, including the County of Riverside, for her emotional distress. In litigation, the attorneys learned that Riverside had studied the intersection years before and determined that allowing cars to park on the street would dangerously block a side street driver’s visibility of approaching vehicles. The lower courts relied upon a 2021 products liability case that began blurring the long-standing distinction between general negligence cases and medical malpractice cases, finding that a general negligence bystander must be physically present at the scene AND aware of the defendant’s negligence at the time of the injury in order to have standing to sue. Downey appealed, and the California Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower courts’ decisions, finding that a general negligence plaintiff doesn't need to know those two elements during the injury-causing event if the emotional trauma suffered was directly caused by their knowledge that their loved one suffered an injury while it was happening. This landmark decision is being cited in courts nationally, redefining standing for a bystander plaintiff’s emotional trauma. It is successfully expanding justice for people who suffer this type of trauma pain, even from afar.

In 2019, as then-President Trump fueled hysteria over caravans of migrants entering the United States, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers apprehended two U.S. citizen children lawfully crossing the border with valid U.S. passports in hand on their way to school. The officers claimed 9-year-old
Julia didn’t look like her passport photo and said she was an undocumented impostor. They threatened to prosecute her 14-year-old brother for smuggling. The children were taken to a secretive underground jail and told during repeated interrogations they could be released to their parents only if they confessed Julia was not a U.S. citizen. Meanwhile, their mother spent hours pleading with CBP to see her children, showing their photos, birth certificates, Social Security cards and school attendance records. Eventually, the children gave in and signed false confessions. The boy was released after 14 hours, but Julia remained in custody for 34 hours. Soon after Joseph McMullen filed suit, a U.S. Supreme Court decision ended plaintiffs' right to bring lawsuits for damages against CBP officers in a jury trial. Undeterred, McMullen proceeded on a Federal Tort Claims Act theory, revealed a massive coverup effort (all
recordings of the children's interrogation and detention were deleted), and carried the case to trial five years after the incident. During trial, two Assistant U.S. Attorneys and every CBP officer witness continued to blame the children and disavow any responsibility. A federal judge found the United States
liable for the unconstitutional actions of its officers and awarded damages to the children and their mother. The written verdict concluded that the government’s conduct “exceeded all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community,” and has been used by civil rights practitioners in other
jurisdictions to overcome the legal hurdles to holding accountable federal agents responsible for this type of abuse.

Kathleen Saurman, a disabled person, was at a restaurant for her birthday dinner with husband Robert when she fell, fracturing her hip on a dangerous barrier to access. Following surgery for that hip fracture, Kathleen contracted a lethal infection causing her untimely death. Robert filed suit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Disabled Persons Act, seeking an injunction to remove the dangerous barrier to access that caused Kathleen's fall and resulting premature death. But the restaurant argued that, because injunctions require a plaintiff to demonstrate future
immediate and irreparable harm, Kathleen (through her estate) had no standing to pursue injunctive relief, because Kathleen was dead and could not encounter any future barriers. The restaurant further moved for $150,000 in financial sanctions against Charles S. Roseman and Richard Prager, Robert's trial attorneys, to chill zealous advocacy protecting others from suffering Kathleen's fate. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment and issuing $98,852 in sanctions against plaintiff's counsel, concluding that Robert's claims were "factually and legally frivolous." Through their appellate counsel
Jon R. Williams, and with the amicus assistance of Ben Siminou on behalf of CAOC, Robert argued on appeal that standards that apply to ADA claims brought in federal courts do not apply to ADA claims brought in California state court. Defendants next requested an additional $30,000 in sanctions against Robert and his counsel for filing a frivolous appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions and the motion for summary judgment, agreeing with Robert, ruling that injunctive relief is permitted under the ADA in California state courts, thus protecting other disabled persons from the same barrier to access that killed Kathleen. This was a first-in-the-nation decision considering the differences in federal and state court standing principles affording Californians the right to correct in state court ADA barriers that killed their loved ones.