Dane F. Joseph Of Counsel

     

Contact

   

Dane Joseph has extensive experience representing businesses and individuals through all phases of civil litigation. His practice primarily focuses on defending general liability matters, including automobile liability and personal injury matters. Dane’s legal experience also involves complex civil litigation, including residential construction, and he has extensive experience representing Fortune 500 companies, including real estate developers, general contractors and property owners. 

Dane was counsel of record and the primary author of the writ petition in a major case before the California Court of Appeal, which established a builder is entitled to summary judgment under California’s Right to Repair Act. The published opinion eliminated all liability against the developer, and the builder was subsequently cited with approval by the California Supreme Court in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241. 

In addition, Dane has drafted numerous dispositive motions that have completely eliminated liability, including eliminating half the plaintiffs in a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit, and he helped draft a motion for summary adjudication that eliminated approximately $90 million in liability in a complex claim valued in excess of $100 million. 

Before joining Wilson Elser, Dane was senior counsel at a top-tier civil litigation firm. He has litigated numerous personal injury cases in California state courts from pre-litigation to trial and has taken hundreds of depositions of plaintiffs, witnesses and experts. Dane has extensive experience making appearances in various California state courts, negotiating settlements and preparing releases, and retaining experts to defend against inflated claims.

Representative Matters

Drafted a writ petition in the California Court of Appeal in a case that established a builder is entitled to summary judgment under California’s Right to Repair Act. The published opinion eliminated all liability against the developer, and the case has been subsequently cited with approval by the California Supreme Court. 

Prevailed on a motion for summary adjudication that eliminated $90 million in liability of a $100 million claim in a residential construction dispute involving a high-rise condominium based on the statute of limitations and failure to provide notice of a warranty claim.

Prevailed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings that eliminated half of the class-action claimants in a residential construction dispute based on an issue of first impression regarding whether the class-action claim tolled the statute of limitations. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 2042 (2017). 

Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment and obtained a dismissal for a landlord involving an alleged dangerous condition on the property owned by the landlord based on an absence of a duty owed to the plaintiff. 

Drafted a successful motion for summary judgment in an automobile accident regarding the plaintiff belatedly adding the client after the statute of limitations ran by filing a defective doe amendment and improperly relying on the relation back doctrine. 

Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment and obtained a dismissal in a medical malpractice claim regarding an alleged breach of the duty of care and causation in medical treatment. 

Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment regarding a dangerous condition on a tenant’s property based on lack of notice and an absence of a duty of care owed. 

Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on the basis the client was not responsible for the tort of an independent contractor and the court’s finding that a co-defendant was an independent contractor rather than an employee. 

Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment based on the trivial defect doctrine in a case involving a slip and fall. 

Prevailed on numerous motions for summary adjudication regarding subcontractors’ duty to defend a developer. In some instances, successfully obtained an award of damages as part of the motion for summary adjudication regarding the amount owed by the subcontractor in defense costs.