Results
REPRESENTATIVE CASES/RESULTS
Please keep in mind that the success of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case: we cannot guarantee particular results for future clients based on successes we have achieved in past legal matters.
Sample Recent Notable Wins:
The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in a FEHA action a bus operator filed against her employer. The Court found triable issues of fact as to whether her attacker was a supervisor, and whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to prevent further harassment upon receiving a prior complaint from another employee about inappropriate behavior by the attacker.
Doe v. Transdev Services, Inc. (2025) Second Appellate District, Div. 7, B327603
Summary judgment was reversed in an action brought by a minor student against a private school bus company for its negligent failure to transport her to her home. The Court of Appeal found triable issues of material fact as to proximate causation necessitated reversal and remand.
Aaliyah J., et al. v. First Student, Inc. (2025) Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1, D085177
In an important issue of first impression, the Court of Appeal analyzed the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b)'s mandatory and discretionary relief provisions and the strict application and Legislative intent behind Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, and held that section 473(b) cannot usurp the Legislative intent behind section 1281.98.
Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 403
The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Defendants' motion to compel our client's case to arbitration, finding that no enforceable arbitration agreement was entered.
Gonzalez v. Anthem, Inc., et al., (2024) Second Appellate District, Div. 1, B323876:
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a civil restraining order against our client.
Gyozalyan v. Dallalzadeh (2023) Second Appellate District, Div. 3, B320815:
The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Defendants' motion to vacate a default and default judgment against them.
Gutierrez et al. v. Liu et al. (2024) Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1, D083004
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in its entirety, reinstating our client's disability discrimination claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Bezzina v. United Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2023) Case No. 22-55293
The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment and clarified two important disability discrimination obligations for employers in this important FEHA appeal. The Court found (1) an employer's adopting all of the employee's requested accommodations is insufficient to satisfy its independent burden to engage in a good faith interactive process and reasonably accommodate the employee, and (2) invocation of a right to downsize does not resolve whether an employer had a discriminatory motive for cutting back its work force, or engaged in intentional discrimination when deciding which individual workers to retain and release, for purposes of a claim under the FEHA. reversing summary judgment.
Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 712
The Court of Appeal affirmed our client's dismissal after demurrer of a lawsuit alleging a wrongful foreclosure and other related causes of action.
Arredondo v. Ghasri et al. (2023) Second Appellate District, Div. 1, B312243
In this catastrophic automobile versus military light-armored vehicle case, we held onto the entire $22M verdict for our clients, and in our cross-appeal, persuaded the Court to remand for a determination of additional damages due to a misapplication of law.
Martinez-Pineda et al. v. USA (9th Cir. 2022) Case Nos. 21-55160/21-55143/21-55177
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeal issued a Palma notice, ordering the trial court to either vacate its order denying a continuance of trial and enter a new and different order continuing the pending trial date for a period reasonably necessary to permit the parties to conduct further discovery and engage in mediation efforts, or in the alternative, show good cause why a peremptory writ should not be issued ordering it to do so. The trial court vacated its order.
Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Superior Court (2022) Second Appellate District, Div. 2, B323372
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted our pretext arguments in overturning summary judgment in our client’s action for wrongful termination, age-discrimination under the FEHA, breach of an implied contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Olvera v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) Case Number 20-55957)
The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment entered in favor of our client, after a bench trial on a breach of oral contract claim.
Paquette v. Paquette (2021) Second Appellate District, Div. 2, B304370
Ruling in favor of our client, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a motion to quash service of summons on defendant SATRA, finding the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider plaintiff’s untimely opposition to the motion and denying plaintiff’s request under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).
Smith v. SATRA (2020) Fourth District, Div. 3, Case No. G058282
In this successful appeal overturning summary judgment, the Court of Appeal found our client demonstrated genuine issues of material fact on his whistleblower claim under the California Labor Code, and on his disability discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This published opinion represents the first instance where an appellate court has recognized that an employee may bring a whistleblowing claim under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) even if the employee did not expressly state that the reported conduct violates the law.
Ross v. County of Riverside (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 580
This appellate victory for our client is notable because, in addition to upholding a trial court order imposing discovery sanctions, the Court of Appeal also determined that this was “one of the rare circumstances in which sanctions are warranted.” The Court found that the public entity’s appeal was frivolous, and required it to pay our client’s appellate attorneys fees.
Schmittle v. Baldwin Park Unified School District (2018) Second Appellate District, Div. 8, B282431
The Court of Appeal affirmed the monetary sanctions the trial court awarded her against the City and one of its attorneys based on, among other things, the City's attempts to disqualify Hanna's attorney on the eve of trial.
Hanna v. City of Long Beach (2018) Second Appellate District, Div. 3, Case B281878
After the trial court granted nonsuit in favor of defendant MTA, the Court of Appeal reversed in favor of our client, finding the lower court improperly reversed the burden of proof for an affirmative defense.
Johnson v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2018) Second Appellate District, Div. 7, B276131
The Ninth Circuit reversed judgment entered in favor of the defendant employer after our client raised sufficient grounds for a jury to determine that he was illegally terminated (among various other employment law violations under California law).
Wilfong v. Tharco Packaging, Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) 671 Fed.Appx. 549
In this successful Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals action, we successfully obtained a full reversal of summary judgment for our client, a union member (SEIU-UHW), who had been laid off from her position. Our client brought an action against her union under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging her union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue her grievance. Not only did the Court of Appeals reverse the judgment, it explicitly found that her layoff violated her collective bargaining agreement and seniority agreement.
Rollins v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (9th Cir. 2016) 839 F.3d 1181
The Court of Appeal agreed that our client was denied his Fourth Amendment rights when police conducted a warrantless search of his backpack, and reversed our client’s conviction.
People v. Rodriguez (2016) Second Appellate District, Div. 6, Case No. B264940
Recent Published Decisions :
In an important issue of first impression, the Court of Appeal analyzed the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b)'s mandatory and discretionary relief provisions and the strict application and Legislative intent behind Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, and held that section 473(b) cannot usurp the Legislative intent behind section 1281.98.
Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 403
In rejecting personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, the Court of Appeal clarified the scope of Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. (1984) 465 U.S. 770 and Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783.
Safieddine v. MBC FZ, LLC et al. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1086
The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment and clarified two important disability discrimination obligations for employers in this important FEHA appeal. The Court found (1) an employer's adopting all of the employee's requested accommodations is insufficient to satisfy its independent burden to engage in a good faith interactive process and reasonably accommodate the employee, and (2) invocation of a right to downsize does not resolve whether an employer had a discriminatory motive for cutting back its work force, or engaged in intentional discrimination when deciding which individual workers to retain and release, for purposes of a claim under the FEHA. reversing summary judgment.
Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 712
Clarified the law concerning a landowner’s duty of care to invitees and interplay between local zoning ordinances and tort duty.
Issakhani v. Shadow Glen Homeowners Assn. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 917
Clarified the law regarding a statutory provision creating mechanism allowing persons convicted of murder to seek resentencing based on legislation change; further clarified California’s natural and probable consequences doctrine.
People v. Bell (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1
This published opinion represents the first instance where an appellate court has recognized that an employee may bring a whistleblowing claim under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) even if the employee did not expressly state that the reported conduct violates the law.
Ross v. County of Riverside (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 580
The California Supreme Court clarified a provision in California’s Government Tort Claims Act statute, resolving a split of decisions in the Courts of Appeal.
J.M. v. Huntington Beach Unified High School District (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648
Although the court gives substantial deference to union decisions, in this unusual case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court found sufficient facts warranted a jury’s determination concerning whether a union breached its duty of fair representation to its member, our client.
Rollins v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (9th Cir. 2016) 839 F.3d 1181
