 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
2011 DFEH v. Hesse Corporation: In this employment discrimination lawsuit, the State of
California Department of Fair Employment And Housing sued our firm's client for illegal
discrimination on account of pregnancy in connection with its termination of the
employment of Linda Alvarez. The Defendant denied any discriminatory intent and
contended that it terminated Ms. Alvarez for falsification of her application for coverage
under Defendant's group health insurance policy insofar as she denied she was
pregnant on the insurance application and gave birth the following day. Defendant also
contended that the claim was barred by after-acquired evidence that Ms. Alvarez falsified
her insurance application in other particulars and also lied on her employment
application and in her job interview with Defendant. After a four-day jury trial in the
Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered a
judgment of nonsuit in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff
2011 Cheroti v. Doe Honda Dealer: In this dispute over the sale of two new Honda
vehicles, Plaintiff refused to return the vehicles he purchased after the dealer cancelled
the contracts due to its inability to finance the transactions. Plaintiff claimed that
Defendant did not timely cancel the contracts in compliance with the contract and
converted the vehicles by repossessing them. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant
violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law in connection with the transactions. After a two phase bifurcated
seven-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Grillo presiding, the
jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client.
2011 Hinojosa v. Quality Towing: In this dispute over the towing and sale at auction of a
motorhome, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant illegally towed their vehicle and refused to
grant them access to retrieve their personal belongings prior to selling the motorhome at
auction and disposing of the contents. Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to
provide the required proof of ownership, or permission from the registered owner,
required by law to gain access the motorhome since the vehicle was registered to a third
party. After a three-day jury trial in the Clark County District Court, Judge Walsh
presiding, the court entered a judgment of nonsuit in favor of our client and against
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' last settlement demand prior to trial was $35,000.
2011 Gutierrez v. Doe Toyota Dealer: In this dispute over the sale of a used 1999
Toyota Corolla that occurred in 2004, Plaintiffs claimed that the dealer failed to disclose
prior accident damage and fraudulently represented that the vehicle was "safe." After
the vehicle was damaged in an accident 2 years post-sale, evidence of a prior accident
and defective repairs was discovered in the course or repairing the new damage.
Lacking credible evidence that the dealer knew or should have known of the prior
defective repairs at the time of the sale to Plaintiffs in 2004, Plaintiffs dismissed their
fraud claim and proceeded to trial on causes of action for breach of implied warranties
and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) [which imposes liability for
innocent misrepresentations]. The Court granted Defendant's motion for of nonsuit as to
the warranty claims. After a four-day jury trial in the Santa Clara County Superior Court,
Judge Zepeda presiding, the jury returned a verdict of $4,691 in favor of Plaintiffs.
Defendant issued a CCP sec. 998 offer for $6,001 at the outset of the litigation before
filing its answer to the complaint. Plaintiffs' last settlement demand prior to trial was in
excess of $65,000. Because the verdict was less than Defendant's statutory settlement
offer, our client will be seeking to offset its costs, including expert witness expenses, to
negate the verdict. Plaintiffs' request for equitable relief in the form of rescission was
denied by the court as was Defendant's motion for JNOV; cross-motions regarding costs
remain to be decided. Both sides have filed appeals from the final judgment and further
appeals from the anticipated rulings on post-trial orders concerning costs are anticipated.
2010 Flenner v. Doe Chevrolet Dealer. In this dispute over the sale of a used Ford F350
turbodiesel truck, Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant auto dealer, represented by Mr.
Sidran, defrauded them by failing to disclose the prior vehicle warranty repair history at
the time of sale. After Plaintiffs failed to prove a causal connection between pre-sale
warranty repairs and any problems with the vehicle after the sale, and after Plaintiffs
failed to establish that the vehicle was worth less than they paid for it at the time of sale
on account of any prior warranty repairs, Defendant's motion for nonsuit on the fraud
claims that were tried to the jury was granted on the third day of trial in the Humboldt
County Superior Court, Judge Brown presiding: Thereafter, the court found in favor of
our client and against Plaintiffs on the nonjury issues tried to the court under ASFA and
UCL.
2010 Collins v. Doe BMW Dealer. In this dispute over the sale of a used BMW 528i,
Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant auto dealer violated the Automobile Sales Finance
Act (AFSA) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) insofar as it charged a California
new tire recycling fee on used tires that were on the vehicle at the time of sale. Plaintiffs
sought restitution, injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendant,
represented by Mr. Sidran, argued that Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by
Defendant's refund of the tire fee overcharge, and that the overcharge did not violate
any consumer protection statutes. After a four-day bench trial in the Contra Costa
County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered judgment for
Defendant. Defendant's motion for recovery of attorney's fees under ASFA is pending.
2010 Ballesteros v. United Road Services: In this retrial following a mistrial in 2009 [see
case details below], Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award in excess of $2 million. At
the conclusion of a thirteen-day jury trial in the San Joaquin County Superior Court,
Judge Kronlund presiding, the jury awarded the three plaintiffs the aggregate sum of
$370,000. The verdict was below our client's pretrial CCP sec. 998 offers for two out of
three Plaintiffs. Appeal pending.
2010 Long v. Quality Towing. In this civil rights lawsuit Plaintiff claimed that Defendant
violated 42 USC 1983 by towing his vehicle and selling the same at auction in derogation
of his civil rights under the 1st, 4th 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States
Constitution.. Plaintiff sought in excess of $70,000 in economic damages as well as
general and punitive damages. Defendant, represented by Mr. Sidran, contended that
Plaintiff could not establish that he held valid title to the subject vehicle and that
Defendant did not act under color of state law in the disposition of that vehicle. After a
one-day jury trial in the United States District Court, District of Nevada,Chief Judge
Roger Hunt presiding, the court granted our client's motion for judgment as a matter of
law.
2009 Ehlert v. Stutsman. In this thee-vehicle chain reaction rear-end collision case,
Plaintiff driving the front vehicle in the collision was thrown from his motorcycle and
allegedly suffered a herniated cervical disk requiring a three level cervical fusion.
Plaintiff who was a self-employed gas station maintenance contractor claimed he would
have to close his business and retrain to work in a less strenuous and less lucrative
occupation due to his accident injuries. Defendant contended that Plaintiff would
continue in his existing occupation and required minimal future medical care. Mr. Sidran
represented the driver of the rear vehicle that caused the accident and his employer.
Plaintiff asked the jury to return a verdict in excess of $1.1 million. Plaintiff issued a CCP
sec. 998 offer for $975,000. Defendant issued a CCP sec. 998 offer for $275,000. After
a 3 week trial in the Mendocino County Superior Court, Judge Behnke presiding, the jury
rendered a verdict in the sum of $610,117 rejecting much of Plaintiff's disputed future
medical and future loss of earnings claims. The judgment was then reduced to $528,059
on Defendant's post-trial motion brought under Hanif v. Housing Authority.
2009 Ballesteros v. United Road Services: In this truck v. car collision case, three
Plaintiffs riding in a Honda Civic claimed they were rear-ended by Defendant's car carrier
and pushed into the semi tractor trailer in front of them. Plaintiffs claimed various soft
tissue and permanent injuries including one Plaintiff claiming the need for a lumbar
fusion and permanent disability as a result of the collision. Plaintiffs' counsel asked the
jury to award in excess of $4.5 million. At the conclusion of a six-week jury trial in the San
Joaquin County Superior Court, Judge Thomasson presiding, a mistrial was granted
based on juror misconduct negating an aggregate verdict of $149,000 for the three
Plaintiffs.
2009 United Road Service v. Aggressive Transport, Ltd. In this truck v. truck collision,
Defendant caused structural damage to a new vehicle being transported by Plaintiff
when its truck backed into Plaintiff's car hauler while parked at a truck stop. Due to
structural damage, the new car could not be repaired to meet Federal new car safety
standards and was therefore destroyed by the manufacturer. Plaintiff, represented by
Mr. Sidran, reimbursed the manufacturer for the full wholesale value of the new vehicle in
the sum of $27,000 Plaintiff then sought reimbursement of that amount from Defendant.
Defendant argued the new vehicle could have been repaired at a cost of $6,000 and
that its liability was limited accordingly. After a five-day jury trial in the Yolo County
Superior Court, Judge Gaard presiding, the jury entered a verdict in favor of our client
for $27,000. Our client also recovered costs of suit in the additional sum of $11,000.
2008 Guideone Insurance v. Kilgore. In this low impact rear end auto collision, Plaintiff
paid out $153,000 in worker's compensation benefits to the driver of the vehicle that was
struck from behind. That driver had previously undergone a low back lumbar fusion, and
Plaintiff claimed he required further low back surgery as a result of the subject collision.
Plaintiff asked the jury to return an award of $75,000 in damages. After a four-day jury
trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Baranco presiding, the jury entered a
defense verdict. Because Defendant received more favorable verdict than its CCP sec.
998 offer for a waiver of costs made at the inception of the lawsuit, Mr. Sidran recovered
an award of over $20,000 in expert witness fees and costs.
2007 Krutiy v. Fung. In this auto v. pedestrian collision, Plaintiff claimed Defendant's
vehicle struck him while he was in a crosswalk. Plaintiff claimed orthopedic and
neurological injuries, including post-concussion syndrome. Plaintiff asked the jury to
award $25,000 in damages. After a three-day jury trial in the San Francisco Superior
Court, Judge Davis presiding, the jury awarded Plaintiff $12,575.
2007 Moretti v. Werner Ladder Company. In this products liability case, Plaintiff was
allegedly injured when the rope used to raise his new 40' extension ladder broke,
causing the ladder extension to fall and strike his right hand. Plaintiff claimed that as a
result of the rope failure he could no longer run his roofing business, would have to be
retrained in another field, and would have to undergo multiple hand and wrist surgeries,
including a fusion of four bones in his hand resulting in 50% loss of range of motion. Mr.
Sidran represented the rope manufacturer against allegations that the rope failed due to
lack of adequate UV inhibitor resulting in premature UV deterioration and failure of the
rope. Plaintiff asked the jury to award over $1 million in economic and noneconomic
damages. Defendant's last offer prior to trial was $235,000. Result: After a four day jury
trial in the Douglas County District Court in Minden, NV, Judge Gibson presiding, the jury
returned a unanimous defense verdict.
2007 Cooper v. Doe Ford Truck Dealer: In this constructive discharge and workplace
harassment case, Mr. Sidran represented Plaintiff's co-worker accused of harassing
Plaintiff on account of his disability - stuttering. Co-Defendants included the dealership
and service manager represented by separate counsel. Plaintiff sought damages for
psychiatric injuries, past and future wage loss as well as punitive damages against our
client. Plaintiff's demand 30 days prior to arbitration was $1.6 million. Plaintiff's last
demand prior to binding arbitration was $500,000. Defendants' last offer was $300,000.
Result: After a five day binding arbitration at JAMS in San Francisco, Judge Bettinelli
presiding, the arbitrator awarded Plaintiff the sum of $333,900 in compensatory
damages against all defendants jointly. The arbitrator declined to award punitive
damages.
2007 Stucky v. Taboada: In this auto v. bicycle collision case, Mr. Sidran
represented the driver of an auto which collided with a bicycle as the auto was making a
left turn into a residential driveway in the Redwood City hills. Plaintiff claimed that
Defendant violated his right of way and made an unsafe left turn in front of him. Plaintiff's
last demand prior to trial was $22,000. Defendant's last offer was $4,501. Defendant
contended that he was not negligent and that Plaintiff's excessive speed in the operation
of his high performance bicycle was the sole cause of the accident. Result: After a
three day jury trial in the San Mateo County Superior court in South San Francisco, CA,
Judge Livermore presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict. Defendant was awarded
$11,160.88 in expert witness fees and costs under CCP sec. 998.
2007 Wertz v. Robertson: In this wrongful death case, unknown third parties moved an
abandoned boat trailer into the middle of a rural road which was struck by decedent's
pickup truck at approximately 2:00 a.m., resulting in two fatalities. The parents of a
passenger who was killed sued the party responsible for abandoning the trailer,
represented by Mr. Sidran, alleging that his negligence contributed to the fatal collision.
Plaintiffs' last demand prior to the verdict was $950,000. Defendant's last offer was
$100,000. Plaintiffs' counsel asked the jury to award $7.5 million. Result: After a three
day jury trial in the Humboldt County Superior Court in Eureka CA, Judge Brown
presiding, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $1 million in damages, finding Defendant 35% at
fault and the unknown third parties who moved the trailer into the road 65% at fault.
Plaintiffs received a net award of $350,000.
2006 Becerra v. Kilkenny: In this truck v. truck intersection collision case, Plaintiff
claimed $30,000 in property damage and $50,000 in soft tissue bodily injuries. Result:
After a four day trial in the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge Vega
presiding, the jury found Plaintiff 49% at fault for the accident and received a net award
against Mr.Sidran's client which was more than 20% less than the nonbinding judicial
arbitration award entered in Plaintiff's favor earlier in the case.
2005 Bobbitt v. Berry-Hinckley Industries: In this premises liability case involving a slip
and fall on ice at a gas station convenience store in Carson City, NV, Mr. Sidran
represented the property owner against Plaintiff's claim for damages, including
the allegation that Plaintiff will require multiple spine surgeries as a result of the
accident. Plaintiff's last settlement demand prior to trial was $250,000. Defendant
served an offer of judgment prior to trial for $75,000. Result: After three days of trial in
the Carson City District Court in Carson City, NV, Judge Maddox presiding, the jury
returned a defense verdict. Defendant was awarded $19,090 in attorney's fees and
costs against Plaintiff as a result of beating our offer of judgment at trial.
2005 Miller v. Baker's Square Restaurants.: In this employment discrimination suit, Mr.
Sidran represented the employer against Plaintiff's claim that he was fired from his
management position on account of his race, age, disability and/or in retaliation for filing
a worker's compensation claim. In closing argument, Plaintiff asked the jury to award
$4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant. Result: After
five days of trial in the Federal District Court in San Jose, CA, Judge Whyte presiding,
the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff of $350,000 based on disability discrimination and
retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. The jury rejected claims of race and
age discrimination, and refused to award emotional distress or punitive damages. The
verdict was reduced to $314,000 on Defendant's motion for remittitur.
2005 Brott v. Cataldo: In this retrial of a truck v. truck rear-end accident following
a mistrial in 2003, our firm represented the Defendant truck driver and his employer. In
closing arguments, Plaintiffs asked the jury to award a total of $140,000 against
Defendants. Result: After four days of trial in the Clark County District Court in Las
Vegas, NV, Judge Leavitt presiding, the jury returned a verdict which was reduced by
applicable set-offs and credits to a net recovery of $8,500. .
2004 Hardscape Paving v. RB&G Construction: In this case Mr. Sidran represented a
concrete subcontractor on its claim for $83,000 owed by the general contractor
for work performed in the construction of a supermarket. The general contractor
cross-complained for $88,000 in backcharges based on alleged construction
defects. Result : After two days of trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court, the
court rendered judgment in favor of our client in the amount of $22,000.
2004 Doe Broker v. Salomon Smith Barney: In this case Mr. Sidran represented a
stock broker against his former firm in a claim for indemnity under Labor Code
sec. 2802. The broker claimed his former employer wrongfully failed to indemnify
him against certain frivolous investor suits and sought recovery of $110,000 in
damages The employer cross-complained for indemnity as to the same investor
suits, and sought recovery of $300,000. Result: Following binding arbitration at
JAMS Los Angeles, Judge Hill presiding, our client recovered $70,000 on his indemnity
claim and defeated the cross-complaint in its entirety. Our client was also awarded
$144,843 in attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party.
2004 Hardscape Paving v. Weeger Bros., Inc.: In this case involving collection of a
disputed balance owed by the general contractor to the subcontractor on a
construction contract, Mr. Sidran represented the subcontractor in its collection
effort at trial in the Orange County Superior Court, Judge Watson presiding. Plaintiff
sought an award of $64,000. Result: After three days of trial, the court rendered
judgment in favor of our client for the full amount sought under the subcontract plus
attorney's fees, costs and interest for a total judgment of over $100,000. Judgment
affirmed on appeal.
2004 Sharifi v. Estate of Stratton: In this case involving a dispute over the validity of a
promissory note and deed of trust encumbering a commercial property, Mr. Sidran
represented the owner at trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto CA
Judge Mayhew presiding, seeking to quiet title by eliminating the debt. Defendants and
Cross-Complainants sought $136,000 in principal and interest. Result: After two days of
trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of our client, quieting title and declaring the
note and trust deed to be void and unenforceable. The court also awarded our client
$43,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
2004 Doering v. 7-Eleven: In this case in which a customer alleged that she was
assaulted by a convenience store clerk, Plaintiff sued the 7-Eleven Franchisee and his
employee for compensatory damages including a torn meniscus and traumatic brain
injury. Mr. Sidran represented the Franchisee and store employee at trial in the Clark
County District Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge Cory presiding. Plaintiff's last settlement
demand before trial was $350,000. At trial Plaintiff asked the jury to award $4 million.
Result: After five days of trial the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of
$47,000.
2003 Pallack v. Doe Contractor: In this case in which homeowners claimed damages
for construction defects and delays totaling $1 million arising out of the $3.8
million renovation of a 13,000 sq. ft. estate in Blackhawk, CA, Mr. Sidran
defended the general contractor in a nine-day binding arbitration at AAA. Result:
The arbitration resulted in an award to the homeowner of $119,263 plus
attorney's fees and costs, which was fully indemnified in a separate action
against subcontractors and suppliers in the Contra Costa County Superior Court.
2003 Davy v. Las Vegas VA1 LLC: In this case involving a trip and fall at a Veterans
Administration facility, Plaintiff sued the owner and contractors involved in original
construction for damages arising out of a serious knee injury. Our office represented
the carpet installer, Dupont Flooring Systems, Inc., at trial in the Clark County District
Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge Denton presiding. Resut: After three days of trial the
case settled for less than had been offered by the defense prior to the commencement
of trial.
2003 Brott v. Cataldo: In this truck v. truck rear-end freeway accident, Mr. Sidran
defended the trucking company and driver against claims of soft tissue injuries
asserted by Plaintiffs at trial in the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge
Douglas presiding. Result: After three days of trial, Plaintiffs caused a mistrial and
Defendants were awarded $9,000 in attorney's fees and costs against Plaintiffs.
2003 Lockett v. Flying U Rodeo: In this case in which the Plaintiff suffered a serious
leg injury as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of the Cow Palace arena
during the Grand Nationals Rodeo, Mr. Sidran defended The State of California
and Flying U Rodeo Company at trial in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood
City, CA, Judge Kopp presiding. Result: Defense Verdict. Affirmed on appeal.
2002 Anderson v. Mouradian: In this case of an alleged assault and battery by a
store employee on a customer, Mr. Sidran defended a 7-Eleven franchisee at
trial in Solano County Superior Court in Fairfield CA. Result: Defense Verdict.
2002 Ortiz v. Lu: In this case of an alleged assault and battery by as store employee
on a customer, Mr. Sidran defended a 7-Eleven Franchisee at trial in San
Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Munter presiding. Plaintiff's last settlement
demand before trial was $350,000. Result: After five days of trial the jury returned a
verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $48,000.
2001 Volckmann v. Southwest Door Company: In this case of alleged defects in
custom made windows and doors, Mr. Sidran defended the manufacturer at trial
in the San Mateo County Superior Court in San Mateo, CA, Judge Gemelo presiding.
Plaintiff's last settlement demand before trial was $375,000. Result: Defense Verdict.
2001 Davis v. K-Mart: In this case of an alleged slip and fall in which an 80 year old
Plaintiff claimed severe bodily injuries, Mr. Sidran defended K-Mart and Reyman
Bros. Construction at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge
Kolin presiding. Result: Defense Verdict. Additionally, Mr. Sidran won and collected a
judgment for contractual indemnity, consisting of $83,000 in attorney's fees and defense
costs, from the masonry subcontractor in this case.
2001 MacLaren v. Syas: In this case of a head on motor vehicle collision in which
Plaintiff claimed she suffered a permanent spinal injury, Mr. Sidran defended the driver
allegedly at fault at trial in the Trinity County Superior Court in Weaverville, CA, Judge
Edwards presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
2000 Kirby v. 7-Eleven: In this case of an alleged civil rights violation in the form of
disability discrimination, Mr. Sidran defended the 7-Eleven franchisee at trial in
the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto, CA, Judge Shaver presiding. Result:
Defense Verdict.
1998 DeMar v. Lemke Construction: In this case the defendant allegedly ran over
Plaintiff's foot at a construction site while operating an all-terrain forklift. Plaintiff
sued for a severe crushing injury to his foot. Mr. Sidran defended the forklift
driver at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Rogers
presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1997 Simon v. New Discovery, Inc.: In this case Mr. Sidran defended a real estate
developer against claims of fraud and breach of contract arising out of the
construction of a large residential development. After a five-month jury trial in the
Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Zuniga presiding. Plaintiff asked the
jury to award over $100 million. After five days of deliberations the jury rendered a
verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $44.3 million. On appeal, the judgment was reduced
to $17.3 million.
1996 Steinbaugh v. Caltrans: In this case involving the wrongful death of a passenger
who was killed when a vehicle she was riding in struck a temporary construction
barrier in the median of the I-210 freeway, Mr. Sidran defended the construction
contractor at trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Pasadena CA, Judge Swart
presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1995 Cal Plaza v. Paller & Goldstein: In this case involving alleged construction
defects at a commercial office building in Walnut Creek, CA, Mr. Sidran defended
the sheet metal flashing subcontractor at trial in Contra Costa Superior Court in
Martinez, CA, Judge Van de Poel presiding. Result: Judgment of nonsuit for defendant.
1995 Gosch v. Bayside Village: In this case involving debris that fell from concrete
forms during construction of a mid-rise apartment building causing the Plaintiff to
suffer a spinal fracture, Mr. Sidran defended the subcontractor accused of dropping the
material at trial in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Chesney presiding.
Result: Defense Verdict.
1993 Johnson v. Dame Construction: In this case involving a claim of malicious
prosecution by a disgruntled homeowner against a residential developer, Mr. Sidran
defended the developer at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA,
Judge Van de Poel presiding: Result: After two weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict
for Plaintiff but no damages were recovered.
1993 Rodriguez v. County of Contra Costa: In this case involving a claim of inverse
condemnation and damage to real property against the County and a developer,
Mr. Sidran negotiated a settlement with the Plaintiff and proceeded to trial on an
indemnity claim against the responsible subcontractor in the Contra Costa Superior
Court in Martinez , CA, Judge Dolgin presiding: Result: Judgment of full indemnity in the
amount of $275,000.
1992 Carpio v. EBMUD: In this case involving a motor vehicle collision in which an
EBMUD employee was allegedly at fault, Mr. Sidran defended East Bay Municipal Utility
District and its driver at trial in the Contra Costa Municipal Court in Richmond CA. Result:
Defense Verdict.
California Department of Fair Employment And Housing sued our firm's client for illegal
discrimination on account of pregnancy in connection with its termination of the
employment of Linda Alvarez. The Defendant denied any discriminatory intent and
contended that it terminated Ms. Alvarez for falsification of her application for coverage
under Defendant's group health insurance policy insofar as she denied she was
pregnant on the insurance application and gave birth the following day. Defendant also
contended that the claim was barred by after-acquired evidence that Ms. Alvarez falsified
her insurance application in other particulars and also lied on her employment
application and in her job interview with Defendant. After a four-day jury trial in the
Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered a
judgment of nonsuit in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff
2011 Cheroti v. Doe Honda Dealer: In this dispute over the sale of two new Honda
vehicles, Plaintiff refused to return the vehicles he purchased after the dealer cancelled
the contracts due to its inability to finance the transactions. Plaintiff claimed that
Defendant did not timely cancel the contracts in compliance with the contract and
converted the vehicles by repossessing them. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant
violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law in connection with the transactions. After a two phase bifurcated
seven-day jury trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Grillo presiding, the
jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client.
2011 Hinojosa v. Quality Towing: In this dispute over the towing and sale at auction of a
motorhome, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant illegally towed their vehicle and refused to
grant them access to retrieve their personal belongings prior to selling the motorhome at
auction and disposing of the contents. Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to
provide the required proof of ownership, or permission from the registered owner,
required by law to gain access the motorhome since the vehicle was registered to a third
party. After a three-day jury trial in the Clark County District Court, Judge Walsh
presiding, the court entered a judgment of nonsuit in favor of our client and against
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' last settlement demand prior to trial was $35,000.
2011 Gutierrez v. Doe Toyota Dealer: In this dispute over the sale of a used 1999
Toyota Corolla that occurred in 2004, Plaintiffs claimed that the dealer failed to disclose
prior accident damage and fraudulently represented that the vehicle was "safe." After
the vehicle was damaged in an accident 2 years post-sale, evidence of a prior accident
and defective repairs was discovered in the course or repairing the new damage.
Lacking credible evidence that the dealer knew or should have known of the prior
defective repairs at the time of the sale to Plaintiffs in 2004, Plaintiffs dismissed their
fraud claim and proceeded to trial on causes of action for breach of implied warranties
and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) [which imposes liability for
innocent misrepresentations]. The Court granted Defendant's motion for of nonsuit as to
the warranty claims. After a four-day jury trial in the Santa Clara County Superior Court,
Judge Zepeda presiding, the jury returned a verdict of $4,691 in favor of Plaintiffs.
Defendant issued a CCP sec. 998 offer for $6,001 at the outset of the litigation before
filing its answer to the complaint. Plaintiffs' last settlement demand prior to trial was in
excess of $65,000. Because the verdict was less than Defendant's statutory settlement
offer, our client will be seeking to offset its costs, including expert witness expenses, to
negate the verdict. Plaintiffs' request for equitable relief in the form of rescission was
denied by the court as was Defendant's motion for JNOV; cross-motions regarding costs
remain to be decided. Both sides have filed appeals from the final judgment and further
appeals from the anticipated rulings on post-trial orders concerning costs are anticipated.
2010 Flenner v. Doe Chevrolet Dealer. In this dispute over the sale of a used Ford F350
turbodiesel truck, Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant auto dealer, represented by Mr.
Sidran, defrauded them by failing to disclose the prior vehicle warranty repair history at
the time of sale. After Plaintiffs failed to prove a causal connection between pre-sale
warranty repairs and any problems with the vehicle after the sale, and after Plaintiffs
failed to establish that the vehicle was worth less than they paid for it at the time of sale
on account of any prior warranty repairs, Defendant's motion for nonsuit on the fraud
claims that were tried to the jury was granted on the third day of trial in the Humboldt
County Superior Court, Judge Brown presiding: Thereafter, the court found in favor of
our client and against Plaintiffs on the nonjury issues tried to the court under ASFA and
UCL.
2010 Collins v. Doe BMW Dealer. In this dispute over the sale of a used BMW 528i,
Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant auto dealer violated the Automobile Sales Finance
Act (AFSA) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) insofar as it charged a California
new tire recycling fee on used tires that were on the vehicle at the time of sale. Plaintiffs
sought restitution, injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendant,
represented by Mr. Sidran, argued that Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by
Defendant's refund of the tire fee overcharge, and that the overcharge did not violate
any consumer protection statutes. After a four-day bench trial in the Contra Costa
County Superior Court, Judge Craddick presiding, the court entered judgment for
Defendant. Defendant's motion for recovery of attorney's fees under ASFA is pending.
2010 Ballesteros v. United Road Services: In this retrial following a mistrial in 2009 [see
case details below], Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award in excess of $2 million. At
the conclusion of a thirteen-day jury trial in the San Joaquin County Superior Court,
Judge Kronlund presiding, the jury awarded the three plaintiffs the aggregate sum of
$370,000. The verdict was below our client's pretrial CCP sec. 998 offers for two out of
three Plaintiffs. Appeal pending.
2010 Long v. Quality Towing. In this civil rights lawsuit Plaintiff claimed that Defendant
violated 42 USC 1983 by towing his vehicle and selling the same at auction in derogation
of his civil rights under the 1st, 4th 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States
Constitution.. Plaintiff sought in excess of $70,000 in economic damages as well as
general and punitive damages. Defendant, represented by Mr. Sidran, contended that
Plaintiff could not establish that he held valid title to the subject vehicle and that
Defendant did not act under color of state law in the disposition of that vehicle. After a
one-day jury trial in the United States District Court, District of Nevada,Chief Judge
Roger Hunt presiding, the court granted our client's motion for judgment as a matter of
law.
2009 Ehlert v. Stutsman. In this thee-vehicle chain reaction rear-end collision case,
Plaintiff driving the front vehicle in the collision was thrown from his motorcycle and
allegedly suffered a herniated cervical disk requiring a three level cervical fusion.
Plaintiff who was a self-employed gas station maintenance contractor claimed he would
have to close his business and retrain to work in a less strenuous and less lucrative
occupation due to his accident injuries. Defendant contended that Plaintiff would
continue in his existing occupation and required minimal future medical care. Mr. Sidran
represented the driver of the rear vehicle that caused the accident and his employer.
Plaintiff asked the jury to return a verdict in excess of $1.1 million. Plaintiff issued a CCP
sec. 998 offer for $975,000. Defendant issued a CCP sec. 998 offer for $275,000. After
a 3 week trial in the Mendocino County Superior Court, Judge Behnke presiding, the jury
rendered a verdict in the sum of $610,117 rejecting much of Plaintiff's disputed future
medical and future loss of earnings claims. The judgment was then reduced to $528,059
on Defendant's post-trial motion brought under Hanif v. Housing Authority.
2009 Ballesteros v. United Road Services: In this truck v. car collision case, three
Plaintiffs riding in a Honda Civic claimed they were rear-ended by Defendant's car carrier
and pushed into the semi tractor trailer in front of them. Plaintiffs claimed various soft
tissue and permanent injuries including one Plaintiff claiming the need for a lumbar
fusion and permanent disability as a result of the collision. Plaintiffs' counsel asked the
jury to award in excess of $4.5 million. At the conclusion of a six-week jury trial in the San
Joaquin County Superior Court, Judge Thomasson presiding, a mistrial was granted
based on juror misconduct negating an aggregate verdict of $149,000 for the three
Plaintiffs.
2009 United Road Service v. Aggressive Transport, Ltd. In this truck v. truck collision,
Defendant caused structural damage to a new vehicle being transported by Plaintiff
when its truck backed into Plaintiff's car hauler while parked at a truck stop. Due to
structural damage, the new car could not be repaired to meet Federal new car safety
standards and was therefore destroyed by the manufacturer. Plaintiff, represented by
Mr. Sidran, reimbursed the manufacturer for the full wholesale value of the new vehicle in
the sum of $27,000 Plaintiff then sought reimbursement of that amount from Defendant.
Defendant argued the new vehicle could have been repaired at a cost of $6,000 and
that its liability was limited accordingly. After a five-day jury trial in the Yolo County
Superior Court, Judge Gaard presiding, the jury entered a verdict in favor of our client
for $27,000. Our client also recovered costs of suit in the additional sum of $11,000.
2008 Guideone Insurance v. Kilgore. In this low impact rear end auto collision, Plaintiff
paid out $153,000 in worker's compensation benefits to the driver of the vehicle that was
struck from behind. That driver had previously undergone a low back lumbar fusion, and
Plaintiff claimed he required further low back surgery as a result of the subject collision.
Plaintiff asked the jury to return an award of $75,000 in damages. After a four-day jury
trial in the Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Baranco presiding, the jury entered a
defense verdict. Because Defendant received more favorable verdict than its CCP sec.
998 offer for a waiver of costs made at the inception of the lawsuit, Mr. Sidran recovered
an award of over $20,000 in expert witness fees and costs.
2007 Krutiy v. Fung. In this auto v. pedestrian collision, Plaintiff claimed Defendant's
vehicle struck him while he was in a crosswalk. Plaintiff claimed orthopedic and
neurological injuries, including post-concussion syndrome. Plaintiff asked the jury to
award $25,000 in damages. After a three-day jury trial in the San Francisco Superior
Court, Judge Davis presiding, the jury awarded Plaintiff $12,575.
2007 Moretti v. Werner Ladder Company. In this products liability case, Plaintiff was
allegedly injured when the rope used to raise his new 40' extension ladder broke,
causing the ladder extension to fall and strike his right hand. Plaintiff claimed that as a
result of the rope failure he could no longer run his roofing business, would have to be
retrained in another field, and would have to undergo multiple hand and wrist surgeries,
including a fusion of four bones in his hand resulting in 50% loss of range of motion. Mr.
Sidran represented the rope manufacturer against allegations that the rope failed due to
lack of adequate UV inhibitor resulting in premature UV deterioration and failure of the
rope. Plaintiff asked the jury to award over $1 million in economic and noneconomic
damages. Defendant's last offer prior to trial was $235,000. Result: After a four day jury
trial in the Douglas County District Court in Minden, NV, Judge Gibson presiding, the jury
returned a unanimous defense verdict.
2007 Cooper v. Doe Ford Truck Dealer: In this constructive discharge and workplace
harassment case, Mr. Sidran represented Plaintiff's co-worker accused of harassing
Plaintiff on account of his disability - stuttering. Co-Defendants included the dealership
and service manager represented by separate counsel. Plaintiff sought damages for
psychiatric injuries, past and future wage loss as well as punitive damages against our
client. Plaintiff's demand 30 days prior to arbitration was $1.6 million. Plaintiff's last
demand prior to binding arbitration was $500,000. Defendants' last offer was $300,000.
Result: After a five day binding arbitration at JAMS in San Francisco, Judge Bettinelli
presiding, the arbitrator awarded Plaintiff the sum of $333,900 in compensatory
damages against all defendants jointly. The arbitrator declined to award punitive
damages.
2007 Stucky v. Taboada: In this auto v. bicycle collision case, Mr. Sidran
represented the driver of an auto which collided with a bicycle as the auto was making a
left turn into a residential driveway in the Redwood City hills. Plaintiff claimed that
Defendant violated his right of way and made an unsafe left turn in front of him. Plaintiff's
last demand prior to trial was $22,000. Defendant's last offer was $4,501. Defendant
contended that he was not negligent and that Plaintiff's excessive speed in the operation
of his high performance bicycle was the sole cause of the accident. Result: After a
three day jury trial in the San Mateo County Superior court in South San Francisco, CA,
Judge Livermore presiding, the jury returned a defense verdict. Defendant was awarded
$11,160.88 in expert witness fees and costs under CCP sec. 998.
2007 Wertz v. Robertson: In this wrongful death case, unknown third parties moved an
abandoned boat trailer into the middle of a rural road which was struck by decedent's
pickup truck at approximately 2:00 a.m., resulting in two fatalities. The parents of a
passenger who was killed sued the party responsible for abandoning the trailer,
represented by Mr. Sidran, alleging that his negligence contributed to the fatal collision.
Plaintiffs' last demand prior to the verdict was $950,000. Defendant's last offer was
$100,000. Plaintiffs' counsel asked the jury to award $7.5 million. Result: After a three
day jury trial in the Humboldt County Superior Court in Eureka CA, Judge Brown
presiding, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $1 million in damages, finding Defendant 35% at
fault and the unknown third parties who moved the trailer into the road 65% at fault.
Plaintiffs received a net award of $350,000.
2006 Becerra v. Kilkenny: In this truck v. truck intersection collision case, Plaintiff
claimed $30,000 in property damage and $50,000 in soft tissue bodily injuries. Result:
After a four day trial in the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge Vega
presiding, the jury found Plaintiff 49% at fault for the accident and received a net award
against Mr.Sidran's client which was more than 20% less than the nonbinding judicial
arbitration award entered in Plaintiff's favor earlier in the case.
2005 Bobbitt v. Berry-Hinckley Industries: In this premises liability case involving a slip
and fall on ice at a gas station convenience store in Carson City, NV, Mr. Sidran
represented the property owner against Plaintiff's claim for damages, including
the allegation that Plaintiff will require multiple spine surgeries as a result of the
accident. Plaintiff's last settlement demand prior to trial was $250,000. Defendant
served an offer of judgment prior to trial for $75,000. Result: After three days of trial in
the Carson City District Court in Carson City, NV, Judge Maddox presiding, the jury
returned a defense verdict. Defendant was awarded $19,090 in attorney's fees and
costs against Plaintiff as a result of beating our offer of judgment at trial.
2005 Miller v. Baker's Square Restaurants.: In this employment discrimination suit, Mr.
Sidran represented the employer against Plaintiff's claim that he was fired from his
management position on account of his race, age, disability and/or in retaliation for filing
a worker's compensation claim. In closing argument, Plaintiff asked the jury to award
$4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant. Result: After
five days of trial in the Federal District Court in San Jose, CA, Judge Whyte presiding,
the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff of $350,000 based on disability discrimination and
retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. The jury rejected claims of race and
age discrimination, and refused to award emotional distress or punitive damages. The
verdict was reduced to $314,000 on Defendant's motion for remittitur.
2005 Brott v. Cataldo: In this retrial of a truck v. truck rear-end accident following
a mistrial in 2003, our firm represented the Defendant truck driver and his employer. In
closing arguments, Plaintiffs asked the jury to award a total of $140,000 against
Defendants. Result: After four days of trial in the Clark County District Court in Las
Vegas, NV, Judge Leavitt presiding, the jury returned a verdict which was reduced by
applicable set-offs and credits to a net recovery of $8,500. .
2004 Hardscape Paving v. RB&G Construction: In this case Mr. Sidran represented a
concrete subcontractor on its claim for $83,000 owed by the general contractor
for work performed in the construction of a supermarket. The general contractor
cross-complained for $88,000 in backcharges based on alleged construction
defects. Result : After two days of trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court, the
court rendered judgment in favor of our client in the amount of $22,000.
2004 Doe Broker v. Salomon Smith Barney: In this case Mr. Sidran represented a
stock broker against his former firm in a claim for indemnity under Labor Code
sec. 2802. The broker claimed his former employer wrongfully failed to indemnify
him against certain frivolous investor suits and sought recovery of $110,000 in
damages The employer cross-complained for indemnity as to the same investor
suits, and sought recovery of $300,000. Result: Following binding arbitration at
JAMS Los Angeles, Judge Hill presiding, our client recovered $70,000 on his indemnity
claim and defeated the cross-complaint in its entirety. Our client was also awarded
$144,843 in attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party.
2004 Hardscape Paving v. Weeger Bros., Inc.: In this case involving collection of a
disputed balance owed by the general contractor to the subcontractor on a
construction contract, Mr. Sidran represented the subcontractor in its collection
effort at trial in the Orange County Superior Court, Judge Watson presiding. Plaintiff
sought an award of $64,000. Result: After three days of trial, the court rendered
judgment in favor of our client for the full amount sought under the subcontract plus
attorney's fees, costs and interest for a total judgment of over $100,000. Judgment
affirmed on appeal.
2004 Sharifi v. Estate of Stratton: In this case involving a dispute over the validity of a
promissory note and deed of trust encumbering a commercial property, Mr. Sidran
represented the owner at trial in the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto CA
Judge Mayhew presiding, seeking to quiet title by eliminating the debt. Defendants and
Cross-Complainants sought $136,000 in principal and interest. Result: After two days of
trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of our client, quieting title and declaring the
note and trust deed to be void and unenforceable. The court also awarded our client
$43,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
2004 Doering v. 7-Eleven: In this case in which a customer alleged that she was
assaulted by a convenience store clerk, Plaintiff sued the 7-Eleven Franchisee and his
employee for compensatory damages including a torn meniscus and traumatic brain
injury. Mr. Sidran represented the Franchisee and store employee at trial in the Clark
County District Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge Cory presiding. Plaintiff's last settlement
demand before trial was $350,000. At trial Plaintiff asked the jury to award $4 million.
Result: After five days of trial the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of
$47,000.
2003 Pallack v. Doe Contractor: In this case in which homeowners claimed damages
for construction defects and delays totaling $1 million arising out of the $3.8
million renovation of a 13,000 sq. ft. estate in Blackhawk, CA, Mr. Sidran
defended the general contractor in a nine-day binding arbitration at AAA. Result:
The arbitration resulted in an award to the homeowner of $119,263 plus
attorney's fees and costs, which was fully indemnified in a separate action
against subcontractors and suppliers in the Contra Costa County Superior Court.
2003 Davy v. Las Vegas VA1 LLC: In this case involving a trip and fall at a Veterans
Administration facility, Plaintiff sued the owner and contractors involved in original
construction for damages arising out of a serious knee injury. Our office represented
the carpet installer, Dupont Flooring Systems, Inc., at trial in the Clark County District
Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge Denton presiding. Resut: After three days of trial the
case settled for less than had been offered by the defense prior to the commencement
of trial.
2003 Brott v. Cataldo: In this truck v. truck rear-end freeway accident, Mr. Sidran
defended the trucking company and driver against claims of soft tissue injuries
asserted by Plaintiffs at trial in the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, NV, Judge
Douglas presiding. Result: After three days of trial, Plaintiffs caused a mistrial and
Defendants were awarded $9,000 in attorney's fees and costs against Plaintiffs.
2003 Lockett v. Flying U Rodeo: In this case in which the Plaintiff suffered a serious
leg injury as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of the Cow Palace arena
during the Grand Nationals Rodeo, Mr. Sidran defended The State of California
and Flying U Rodeo Company at trial in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood
City, CA, Judge Kopp presiding. Result: Defense Verdict. Affirmed on appeal.
2002 Anderson v. Mouradian: In this case of an alleged assault and battery by a
store employee on a customer, Mr. Sidran defended a 7-Eleven franchisee at
trial in Solano County Superior Court in Fairfield CA. Result: Defense Verdict.
2002 Ortiz v. Lu: In this case of an alleged assault and battery by as store employee
on a customer, Mr. Sidran defended a 7-Eleven Franchisee at trial in San
Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Munter presiding. Plaintiff's last settlement
demand before trial was $350,000. Result: After five days of trial the jury returned a
verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $48,000.
2001 Volckmann v. Southwest Door Company: In this case of alleged defects in
custom made windows and doors, Mr. Sidran defended the manufacturer at trial
in the San Mateo County Superior Court in San Mateo, CA, Judge Gemelo presiding.
Plaintiff's last settlement demand before trial was $375,000. Result: Defense Verdict.
2001 Davis v. K-Mart: In this case of an alleged slip and fall in which an 80 year old
Plaintiff claimed severe bodily injuries, Mr. Sidran defended K-Mart and Reyman
Bros. Construction at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge
Kolin presiding. Result: Defense Verdict. Additionally, Mr. Sidran won and collected a
judgment for contractual indemnity, consisting of $83,000 in attorney's fees and defense
costs, from the masonry subcontractor in this case.
2001 MacLaren v. Syas: In this case of a head on motor vehicle collision in which
Plaintiff claimed she suffered a permanent spinal injury, Mr. Sidran defended the driver
allegedly at fault at trial in the Trinity County Superior Court in Weaverville, CA, Judge
Edwards presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
2000 Kirby v. 7-Eleven: In this case of an alleged civil rights violation in the form of
disability discrimination, Mr. Sidran defended the 7-Eleven franchisee at trial in
the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto, CA, Judge Shaver presiding. Result:
Defense Verdict.
1998 DeMar v. Lemke Construction: In this case the defendant allegedly ran over
Plaintiff's foot at a construction site while operating an all-terrain forklift. Plaintiff
sued for a severe crushing injury to his foot. Mr. Sidran defended the forklift
driver at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Rogers
presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1997 Simon v. New Discovery, Inc.: In this case Mr. Sidran defended a real estate
developer against claims of fraud and breach of contract arising out of the
construction of a large residential development. After a five-month jury trial in the
Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA, Judge Zuniga presiding. Plaintiff asked the
jury to award over $100 million. After five days of deliberations the jury rendered a
verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $44.3 million. On appeal, the judgment was reduced
to $17.3 million.
1996 Steinbaugh v. Caltrans: In this case involving the wrongful death of a passenger
who was killed when a vehicle she was riding in struck a temporary construction
barrier in the median of the I-210 freeway, Mr. Sidran defended the construction
contractor at trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Pasadena CA, Judge Swart
presiding. Result: Defense Verdict.
1995 Cal Plaza v. Paller & Goldstein: In this case involving alleged construction
defects at a commercial office building in Walnut Creek, CA, Mr. Sidran defended
the sheet metal flashing subcontractor at trial in Contra Costa Superior Court in
Martinez, CA, Judge Van de Poel presiding. Result: Judgment of nonsuit for defendant.
1995 Gosch v. Bayside Village: In this case involving debris that fell from concrete
forms during construction of a mid-rise apartment building causing the Plaintiff to
suffer a spinal fracture, Mr. Sidran defended the subcontractor accused of dropping the
material at trial in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Chesney presiding.
Result: Defense Verdict.
1993 Johnson v. Dame Construction: In this case involving a claim of malicious
prosecution by a disgruntled homeowner against a residential developer, Mr. Sidran
defended the developer at trial in the Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, CA,
Judge Van de Poel presiding: Result: After two weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict
for Plaintiff but no damages were recovered.
1993 Rodriguez v. County of Contra Costa: In this case involving a claim of inverse
condemnation and damage to real property against the County and a developer,
Mr. Sidran negotiated a settlement with the Plaintiff and proceeded to trial on an
indemnity claim against the responsible subcontractor in the Contra Costa Superior
Court in Martinez , CA, Judge Dolgin presiding: Result: Judgment of full indemnity in the
amount of $275,000.
1992 Carpio v. EBMUD: In this case involving a motor vehicle collision in which an
EBMUD employee was allegedly at fault, Mr. Sidran defended East Bay Municipal Utility
District and its driver at trial in the Contra Costa Municipal Court in Richmond CA. Result:
Defense Verdict.
Alameda
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Trial & Arbitration Results
Contra Costa