In this case, a plaintiff sued our public entity client for negligence and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The plaintiff alleged that the public entity’s employees inappropriately and unlawfully pepper sprayed him while he was incarcerated at a local jail. On behalf of our public entity client, we moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the public entity was statutorily immune from the negligence cause of action and that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact with respect to the municipal liability claim.  The motion was granted in its entirety.

In this case, the plaintiff owned and operated a daycare and preschool on property owned by our clients, who were individuals and business entities.  The plaintiff filed suit against our clients claiming that they breached oral and written contracts related to the operation of the daycare and preschool.  Plaintiff also alleged that defendants tortiously interfered with her business and prospective business opportunities.  Finally, plaintiff alleged that her business was wrongfully evicted from the property.  The lawsuit sought damages for loss business profits and future business profits, as well as punitive damages and attorney’s fees.  Defendants demurred to the initial complaint, which was procedurally defective on its face.  In lieu of filing an opposition, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which completely changed the facts from the initial Complaint to get around the procedural defects of the statute of limitations and statute of fraud defenses.  Defendants demurred based on the “sham pleading” doctrine.  The Court dismissed all individual defendants and gave plaintiff leave to amend as to the business entities.  Also, the Court found that the tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging the same facts as the previous two complaints and attached the alleged contract.  Defendants again demurred based on the fact that there was no privity of contract and because the facts alleged did not show that the remaining entity defendants caused or contributed to plaintiff’s alleged damages.  The Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the case in its entirety and entitling defendants to its costs. 

Recently, the firm was successful in obtaining a dismissal of a dental malpractice case. In that case, the plaintiff claimed that she received dental implants that were placed too close to a nerve, causing permanent injuries. In the course of discovery, we determined that plaintiff’s action was untimely filed. Consequently, plaintiff attempted to overcome that issue by amending the complaint to include allegations of intentional concealment and fraud. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that our clients, the dental school and the dentists, committed fraud when they repeatedly assured her that the subsequent pain and discomfort were normal and would heal on its own. We successfully opposed plaintiff’s attempt to amend the complaint. Subsequently, we filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff ’s action was untimely filed and barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her lawsuit prior to filing an opposition to our motion.

Plaintiff sustained serious bodily injuries in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant. We demurred on the basis that plaintiff’s action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Following the Court’s tentative ruling granting our demurrer without leave to amend, plaintiff filed a dismissal with prejudice.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants committed malpractice when the defendants allegedly dispensed the wrong medication. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. Our demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on the strict liability claim. We moved for summary judgment on the rest of plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that her action was barred by the statute of limitations. In lieu of filing her opposition, plaintiff filed a dismissal of the case.

In this action, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision with the individual defendants in the case. Plaintiffs alleged that our client was liable for the individual defendants’ actions through respondeat superior. In our motion for summary judgment, we argued that plaintiff’s action lacked merit as the individual defendants were not employed by, nor agents of, our client. Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to our motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of slipping on oil on defendant’s restaurant premises. In a motion for summary judgment, we successfully argued that plaintiff’s action lacked merit as plaintiff could not prove that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.