Mr. Hurrell along with partner Mariam Kaloustian recently achieved a defense verdict in a case in United States District Court where they represented a local law enforcement agency. The case involved an individual who was asked to leave a police substation after voicing his displeasure about how an internal personnel matter involving an acquaintance of his was being handled. After refusing to leave the station, he physically resisted efforts to place him under arrest and was injured after being taken to the ground by officers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Hurrell’s clients on a Fourth Amendment claim of false arrest and a First Amendment free speech claim.

More recently, Mr. Hurrell, his partner Jill Wood and associate Rebecca Snader tried a case in United States District Court involving a seizure of suspected stolen property from a large distribution business in Los Angeles. The law enforcement agency that seized the property did not complete its investigation after the property was seized due to a backlog of work, and charges were never filed. The distribution company sued for Fourth Amendment violations claiming that the seizure caused nearly 14 million dollars in past and future losses. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but only in the amount of $547,000, which was the amount suggested by Mr. Hurrell through his accounting expert.

At the end of last year the National Business Institute organized a seminar in southern California regarding handling police liability claims. Two of our partners, Thomas C. Hurrell and Melinda Cantrall,  where chosen to present at this colloquium. Mr. Hurrell’s presentation was on “Understanding The Police Investigation and Disciplinary Process”. Ms. Cantrall’s presentation was titled, “Pursuing Qualified Immunity On Behalf of A Defendant Officer Throughout Your Case”. To read more about these topics from the presentations given by our partners, follow the link that has been provided below. A full course book on the seminar may be purchased directly from the NBI website.

COURSE CONTENT OUTLINE:

1. Understanding the Police Investigation and Disciplinary Process
   1:00 - 1:50, Written and presented by Thomas C. Hurrell in Los Angeles and Orange.

   1. What Documents are Available for Discovery?
   2. Is a Civilian Entitled to Any Information During an On-Going Investigation?
   3. The Internal Affairs Process
   4. Subsequent Investigation by Attorney General or Other Governmental Agency
   5. Procedural Protections Due to Law Enforcement Officers

1. Pursuing Qualified Immunity Throughout Your Case
   3:30 - 4:30, Written and presented by Melinda Cantrall in Los Angeles and Orange.
   1. Overview
   2. Pursuing Qualified Immunity Before Trial
   3. Appeal of the Denial of Qualified Immunity Prior to Trial
      1. When is the Denial of Qualified Immunity Appealable?
      2. Federal Court vs. State Court
   4. Pursuing Qualified Immunity During Trial Proceedings
   5. Specific Claims and Recent Case Law

Handling the Police Liability Claim

Court reporters must be provided by litigants for hearings and at trial due to budget cuts in the State Court system.  With the exception of some courts providing reporters on a limited basis approximately two days a week, the parties to a case must provide and pay for their own reporters.  This recent development will add to the cost of litigating a case in no small measure.

Over 50 courtrooms in Los Angeles County were also shut down this summer due to the same wave of budget cuts.  This will undoubtedly create more of a backlog of cases, and could substantially increase the time cases get resolved or tried.  Hearing dates on motions are being assigned many months down the road due to overstretched court resources and increasing caseloads by our judges.

On June 29, 2011, Hurrell Cantrall LLP held a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony to celebrate the opening of its new offices in the Macy’s Plaza, located at 700 S. Flower Street in downtown Los Angeles. Over 60 Chamber and downtown community members attended the event. The Managing Partner, Tom Hurrell, presided over the ribbon cutting portion of the evening. Councilwoman Jan Perry of the Ninth District provided the attendees with a brief overview of upcoming developments in downtown Los Angeles.

The attorneys at Hurrell Cantrall LLP would like to thank everyone who participated in welcoming the firm to its new office. Hurrell Cantrall LLP represents Fortune 500 Companies, cities, counties, school districts, and small to medium-sized businesses in the areas of employment law, police misconduct, civil rights, insurance defense, premises liability, and products liability litigation. The firm consists of 17 attorneys, of which a considerable percentage are women and minorities.

You are Cordially invited to celebrate the opening of Hurrell Cantrall’s new office at our Ribbon Cutting Ceremony and Open House on June 29, 2011 from 5:30 to 8:30p.m. Fellow L.A. Chamber of Commerce members, local officials, and downtown business owners and merchants will be in attendance. Wine, appetizers, and raffle prizes will be provided. We hope you will join us and take the opportunity to learn more about our firm and to meet our attorneys in a relaxed and festive atmosphere.

Hurrell Cantrall LLP represents local businesses, Fortune 500 corporations, product manufacturers and distributors, school districts, cities, counties, and other government entities in the areas of employment law, products liability, toxic tort litigation, and general liability defense.

For the past few months, we have been designing our beautiful new office space on the 9th floor of the Verizon building at Macy’s Plaza on the corner of 7th Street and Flower Street. We will still be located in downtown Los Angeles, just two blocks from our current location. Please make a note of our new address, beginning May 21, 2011: 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Our phone numbers will remain the same.

In this products liability case, the surviving plaintiffs alleged that the decedent developed and died of acute myelogenous leukemia due to his occupational exposure to benzene, which was allegedly released from the manufacturing processes at our client’s chemical plant.  At the early stages of litigation, we engaged in a series of informal negotiations with the plaintiffs’ counsel.  We urged the plaintiffs’ counsel to dismiss our client from the action based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims.  Before our demurrer and motion to strike was heard, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss our client with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs.

In this action, a cross-complainant filed suit against our client, alleging fourteen causes of action, including, but not limited to breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, indemnity, and declaratory relief.  The cross-complainant also sought punitive damages against our client.  On behalf of our client, we demurred to the majority of the causes of action, and filed a separate lawsuit against the cross-complainant for breach of contract.  At the hearing of our demurrer to the operative cross-complaint, the Court dismissed twelve of the cross-complainants’ claims against our client without leave to amend.  Subsequently, we engaged in negotiations with the cross-complainant’s counsel, and argued that the evidence indicated that the cross-complainant had breached the contract at issue and owed our client damages pursuant to the liquidated damages clause.  The parties agreed to settle all actions under the condition that the cross-complainant pay our client the entire amount of damages owed under the liquidated damages clause of the contract.