ROOFING ACCIDENT ● $12.1M+ IN DAMAGES CLAIMED ● DISMISSAL OF CASE
February 2024
Rhino Roofing adv. Castillo (A-23-863903-C) Read On
-
-
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT ● $707K SOUGHT AT TRIAL ● $272k JURY VERDICT AND FORCED ABANDONMENT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES
May 2023
Bustamante adv. Martin (A-19-802859-C) After in-house counsel discovered a conflict, we substituted in as counsel of record mid-discovery. During his deposition, Defendant admitted to certain facts that Plaintiff might have leveraged to pursue his claim for punitive damages. Defendant also conce... Read On
-
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT ● $500k DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL ● $1.5M SOUGHT AT TRIAL ● $125k JURY VERDICT (REDUCED TO $106,250)
August 2022
Duncan adv. Garcia. (A-18-772771-C). Defendant nodded off while driving and crossed over the centerline resulting in a three-vehicle accident. There was no question that our client was negligent. Subsequently, Plaintiff who was in her twenties underwent multiple sets of steroid injections and a radiofrequency ablation. She was also diagnosed with chronic pain and given a recommendation for future radiofequency ablation surgeries twice annually for the next 60 years as well as periodic physical therapy and other related treatments. At trial, Plaintiff's counsel argued for $1.5 M in past and future pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment, and medical treatment. Our evidence demonstrated various inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's statements to treatment providers as well as in the diagnosis and treatment actually undertaken. We also presented evidence that Plaintiff failed to drive defensively and could have avoided the subject accident. Read On
-
INSURANCE COVERAGE ● SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED AGAINST PLAINTIFF
March 2022
Hendrix v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (2:20-cv-01856-RFB-EJY). Our client, a prominent insurance carrier, declined a claim by the plaintiff, a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident, against her fault-free passenger's UIM coverage. Our firm successfully argued that under the plain terms of the policy, the plaintiff was not entitled to any coverage as she was not an insured person, not a relative, not a rated resident, and not a person occupying/operating a covered vehicle. We further successfully argued that NRS 687B.147 was inapplicable to this case; instead, it is applicable only to liability insurance and a clear distinction exists between liability policies and UIM coverage. As a result, our motion for summary judgment was granted and all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice. Read On
-
SLIP AND FALL ● $500k DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL ● $771k SOUGHT AT TRIAL ● $196k JURY VERDICT
February 2022
Reed v. DG Retail, LLC et al. (190904002). Plaintiff slipped and fell at our client's store on a spilled substance. Our client failed to preserve surveillance footage of the cause of the spill prompting the court to impose an adverse inference. Plaintiff was hospitalized and then spent two months in in-patient rehabilitation center due to a fractured pelvis. We were able to persuade the jury not to award any future damages. Although Plaintiff sought more than $770,000 at trial, the jury ultimately awarded about 1/4 that amount. Read On
-
DEFAMATION / DEFAMATION PER SE ● CASE DISMISSED AND FEES AND COSTS AWARDED TO OUR CLIENT
July 2021
Olympia Companies, LLC et al. v. Michael Kosor, JR. (A-17-765257-C). Plaintiffs' complaint against our client was dismissed in its entirety under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, which further entitled our client to recovery of his reasonable attorney fees and costs. Our client was a candidate for the board of directors of his HOA when he was sued for defamation and defamation per se for statements he made concerning the governance of his HOA. Our firm substituted in for prior defense counsel after the district court initially denied the special motion to dismiss firm, and we succeeded in obtaining a reversal and remand from the Supreme Court of Nevada. Kosor v. Olympia Companies, LLC, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 83, 478 P.3d 390 (2020). We then supplemented the briefing, argued before the district court and succeeded in obtaining a complete dismissal of all claims against our client. Finally, we succesfully recovered more than $200k in attorney fees and costs incurred, as well as a recovery of the maximum damages permitted by statute. Read On
-
OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE ● EXCLUSION OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT AND CHARACTER WITNESSES
August 2016
Rojas, et al. v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., et al. (A-14-704467-C). Our clients' motions in limine resulted in the successful exclusion of plaintiffs' biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction rebuttal expert, safety expert, and twenty character witnesses, as well as the limiting of testimony offered by plaintiffs' alternative accident reconstruction expert and treating physician (regarding Adjacent Segment Disease). Read On
-
NEGLIGENT RECYCLING PLANT ● $225,000 JURY VERDICT FOR OUR CLIENT
January 2016
Repurpose America v. Secured Fibres (A-13-685200-C). Defendant operated a recycling plant in violation of multiple city and county ordinances, resulting in multiple fires causing harm to a neighboring non-profit organization. In a very rare plaintiff's case, our firm successfully represented the non-profit in recovering the harm resulting from the negligently caused fires, as well as damages for nuisance. Read On
-
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ● PLAINTIFF'S CASE DISMISSED
December 2014
Webster v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 2:09-CV-2433 JCM LRL, 2012 WL 1340552 (D. Nev. Apr. 18, 2012), aff'd, 551 Fed. Appx. 361 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff's complaint against our client was dismissed as a discovery sanction. Read On
-
INSURANCE BAD FAITH ● DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT
February 2013
Vignola v. Gilman, 2:10-CV-02099-PMP, 2013 WL 495504 (D. Nev. Feb. 8, 2013). Under applicable Colorado law Plaintiff was not allowed to amend a complaint to include claims for “stacking” of UIM coverages; violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; or to effectively reform our client's “umbrella” policy to include UM/UIM coverage. Read On
-
MULTI-VEHICLE ACCIDENT ● $6.5 M DEMANDED & $13.6 M SOUGHT AT TRIAL ● $2.75 M JURY VERDICT
December 2012
Dogra v. Liles (A-10-623268-C). Plaintiff suffered life threatening injuries in a multi-car collision, resulting in $790,000 in past medical expenses, and the need for future care for lasting cognitive and physical impairment. Our client was found liable as a matter of law. Plaintiff's counsel argued for $13.6 M in past and future medical and economic damages in closing argument. Read On
-
PRIEST MOLESTATION CLAIM ● $5.1 M SOUGHT AT TRIAL ● $400,000 (amended) JURY VERDICT
October 2012
An adult plaintiff--allegedly molested by a priest while a minor--sued a Catholic diocese for fraud and negligent failure to disclose to him the priest's history of sexual abuse. After a four-week trial, plaintiff's counsel (nationally prominent for handling molestation cases against the Catholic Church) in closing argued for $5.1 M for past and future pain and suffering, medical and economic damages, as well as punitive damages. VERDICT: Jury rejected fraud and punitive damages claim; $400,000 (amended) for negligence. On appeal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Diocese, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's decision. Read On
-
DUI MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT ● $2 M (POLICY LIMITS) DEMANDED BY EACH OF FOUR PLAINTIFFS ● $181,056.83 JURY VERDICT (COMBINED)
September 2012
Our client (who died from unrelated causes before trial) caused a traffic accident while intoxicated. The four plaintiffs received a series of spinal injections and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for claimed accident-related injuries. The plaintiffs all made policy limit demands and went to trial anticipating verdicts in excess of our client's auto liability policy limits. At trial, the plaintiffs sought combined damages of approximately $2 M. In a case of clear liability, our evidence focused on the individual plaintiffs' damage claims, and that each plaintiff had overtreated. VERDICT: $31,979.56; $24,777.64 (amended); $83,071.63; and $41,228.00. None of the plaintiffs received an award exceeding pre-trial offers of judgment made by the defense (all of which were well below policy limits). Read On
-
HEAD-ON MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT ● $500,000 DEMANDED ● $85,000; $0 JURY VERDICTS
August 2012
Landscaper's employee ran a stop sign and struck the plaintiff's vehicle head-on; the employee was arrested for DUI after failing field sobriety tests. Liability of the landscaper and employee was conceded. There were over $300,000 in past medical expenses for neck fusion surgery and pain-management. Plaintiff's counsel argued for $6.8 M in past and future pain, suffering, and medical treatment, and asked the jury to impose statutorily-permitted punitive damages against the employee. Our evidence was that there was no objective medical proof of an accident-related spinal injury, or that our driver-client was impaired when the accident occurred. VERDICT: $85,000 for plaintiff's past damages. Loss of consortium claim by plaintiff's spouse was rejected entirely, as were punitive damages. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied. Read On
-
PEDESTRIAN-MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT ● $2 M DEMANDED ● $2,450 JURY VERDICT
July 2012
Our client's delivery van struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The plaintiff alleged significant injuries, supposedly resulting in lumbar fusion surgery and $400,000 in medical expenses. Our proof at trial was that the plaintiff's treatment was due to pre-existing conditions, not accident trauma. Plaintiff's counsel argued liability was clear and asked for a verdict of $3 million. VERDICT: $2450 — The cost of the ambulance service and emergency room visit. Our client received a post-trial order for attorney's fees and costs (which were waived in exchange for plaintiff's agreement not to appeal). Read On
-
INDEMNITY/CONSTRUCTION LAW ● GRANT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED
May 2012
Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the lower court’s grant of co-defendant’s motion for summary judgment against our client for indemnity arising out of a third-party’s injury at an excavation site. The Court noted that co-defendant had assumed our client’s duty to safeguard the site and had not returned control of that portion of the project to our client at the time of the accident. Read On
