Associate Anthony Perez joins Hurrell Cantrall LLP.  Prior to joining our firm, Mr. Perez was an attorney at a prominent insurance defense/litigation firm where he litigated and defended claims of premises liability, personal injury, wrongful death, and breach of contract. 

To learn more about Mr. Perez, please view his Profile.

Hurrell Cantrall LLP welcomes our new associate Donald L. Mabry to the firm.  With appoximately 15 years of experience as a litigator, Mr. Mabry has tried over 30 cases and has mediated and arbitrated dozens more involving an array of legal issues.  He is admitted to the state bars of California and Wisconsin.  At Hurrell Cantrall LLP, Mr. Mabry will be focusing on the defense of claims for products liability, general liability, and governmental liability.

To learn more about Mr. Mabry, please view his Profile.

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.  

Plaintiff sued various defendants, including numerous public agencies, alleging breach of contract. On behalf of three out-of-state public entity defendants, we successfully argued that California courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the matter and that exercising such jurisdiction would be a gross violation of defendants’ constitutional rights to due process and violate notions of fair play and substantial justice.

In this action, plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of exposure to numerous defendants’ paint products, decedent developed and died of acute myelogenous leukemia. Plaintiffs produced voluminous documents allegedly establishing that decedent purchased our client’s paint products. We filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiffs had insufficient evidence of decedent’s exposure to our client’s product and that plaintiffs could not establish that exposure to our client’s product was a substantial factor in causing his leukemia. A couple of days before plaintiffs’ opposition was due, we reached a favorable settlement on behalf of our client.

In this action, plaintiff alleged that defendant deputies and the County violated his civil rights when the deputies allegedly used excessive force in detaining him and in attempting to cover up their alleged misconduct. At trial, defendants contended that the use of force was reasonable in light of plaintiff’s actions. In addition, defendants argued that plaintiff had no evidence that defendants conspired to hide their use of force.  After deliberating, the jury returned a unanimous decision in favor of all the defendants, finding that they acted properly in detaining the plaintiff. 

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.