The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a published decision, overturned the district court’s decision that denied our law enforcement client qualified immunity.  In addition, the appellate court remanded the action to the district court for dismissal, and vacated plaintiffs’ award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.  In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants, a public entity and a number of law enforcement officers, violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they were detained, their assets in a banking account were seized and their residence searched pursuant to a warrant.  Plaintiffs claimed that there was no probable cause to search their residence or to seize their assets even though probable cause may have existed to search their prostitution business at another location. They also claimed that the public entity defendant had unconstitutional policies, customs, and practices that caused their injuries. On behalf of the public entity and the law enforcement officers, we filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence supporting plaintiffs’ claims against the public entity client, and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court granted the motion with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against the public entity and some of the law enforcement officers. However, the Court disagreed with our argument that one of the law enforcement officers were entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with us and determined that the law enforcement officer had a reasonable belief that probable cause existed, and that she was entitled to qualified immunity.

Ninth Circuit Decision
LA Times Article
Daily Journal

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.

In this case, plaintiffs allege that decedent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the decedent was shot by a fellow officer in the course of their duties as police officers.  Plaintiff also alleged a Monell claim against the two public entities.  On behalf of all defendants, we moved for summary judgment on the ground that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.  We also argued that the plaintiffs could not establish an underlying constitutional violation or that there existed any unlawful custom, practice or policy.  The motion was granted in its entirety.  

In this case, plaintiff filed suit in both state and federal courts alleging that the defendants unfairly discharged him in retaliation and in violation of state and federal laws. In the federal action, we successfully argued that plaintiff had no evidence to establish pretext. In the state action, we successfully argued that the judgment in the federal court barred his action in the state court under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

In this matter, plaintiff alleged that, while incarcerated, defendants deputies, Sheriff’s Department, County, and Sheriff, engaged in actions amounting to the use of excessive force, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.  In addition, plaintiff asserted claims for negligent supervision and unconstitutional policies, practice, and procedures.  We successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Monell, negligent supervision, and general negligence claims.  At trial, we argued that the evidence supported defendants’ contention that the force used was justified and reasonable.  In addition to obtaining a defense verdict, our application to tax costs was granted.

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.