Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Taylor Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) combined to obtain a judgment in favor of a boat owner before the U.S. District Court for Utah. The Salt Lake federal court entered judgment in exoneration of the owner in connection with a fire that occurred on October 26, 2023, on Lake Powell, causing damage to the vessel along with the surrounding dock infrastructure and other vessels. It was suspected that the fire was caused by lithium-ion batteries. While no one was on board the vessel at the time of the incident, neighboring vessel owners set the boat adrift after observing smoke billowing from its windows. Unfortunately, winds blew the vessel from one part of the marina to another, resulting in significant damage to the marina's dock, other vessels and surrounding property. Claimants in the proceeding included the marina operator, which had asserted claims for damages related to dock repairs and vessel salvage costs. With no evidence proving the vessel owner had any knowledge of the cause of the fire, the marine withdrew its claims. With the Court's exoneration order, the vessel owner petitioner has been found free of liability, and the action is now closed.

Daniel S. Hurwitz (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Anatolii Trembach (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), and Rory L. Lubin (Partner-White Plains, NY) obtained a complete victory in the Superior Court of California on behalf of Wilson Elser's client, a global real estate investment trust. The plaintiffs in this case sued our client, the alleged landlord of an industrial property where the decedent had worked, along with other defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the decedent's death was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at a facility operated by the client’s tenant, asserting wrongful death, strict product liability, and survival causes of action.

Dan and Anatolii prevailed on two successive demurrers, persuading the court that the claims against the client were barred by the statute of limitations and that the relation-back doctrine under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 did not apply. The court agreed and dismissed the action against the client. When the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, we filed another brief demonstrating that the motion presented no new facts, circumstances, or law warranting reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. After reviewing our brief, the plaintiffs waved the white flag and withdrew the motion in its entirety, resulting in complete and final dismissal of the action at the pleadings stage and sparing the client the costs and risks associated with the discovery process. The case against the remaining defendants continues.

Gregory Lee (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Danielle Rivera (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) secured summary judgment on behalf of a ski resort in a high-exposure wrongful death lawsuit arising from a fatal chairlift accident. The decedent, an expert snowboarder, was riding alone on a chairlift when he fell 40 feet to the ground below and died from blunt force trauma. The subject chairlift was the only one at the resort not equipped with a restraint bar. The plaintiffs alleged that the fall resulted from the ski resort's grossly negligent installation, maintenance, and operation of the chairlift.

Greg and Danielle moved for summary judgment based on the defense of express assumption of risk. In opposing the motion, the plaintiffs challenged the admissibility and enforceability of the decedent’s liability releases. Additionally, their expert testified that industry standards required the chairlift to be equipped with a restraint bar, and that the installation would have prevented the decedent from falling. The San Bernardino Superior Court agreed with Greg and Danielle, finding that one of the decedent’s liability releases was admissible and enforceable and that the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert was insufficient to overcome the defense of express assumption of risk.
 

Gary Pancer (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Kelley Harman (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Aria Aghalarpour (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) of Wilson Elser secured a complete defense verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, on behalf of their client, The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the "Hotel"). The verdict followed a three-week-long jury trial, preceded by two weeks of extensive pre-trial motion practice and jury selection. General Counsel for the Hotel's owner, Michael Tenner, was present throughout the entirety of the proceedings.

Plaintiff, a 68-year-old woman, claimed that she ordered a decaffeinated iced tea at the Hotel's Roof Garden restaurant at lunch on January 30, 2021, but was allegedly served caffeinated tea. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to establish liability through testimony from family members who were present at the lunch, as well as a friend who had worked at the Hotel for 17 years. Wilson Elser presented testimony from Hotel leadership, including the former Assistant Director of Food and Beverage, the Hotel Manager, and the Managing Director, establishing clear, reliable beverage service protocols that were followed, including the use of separate containers and visual markers to distinguish decaffeinated beverages.

Plaintiff relied on expert testimony from a physician who opined that caffeine consumption caused plaintiff's cardiac symptoms. We countered with expert analysis by a research cardiologist and electrophysiology expert, who explained that it is medically implausible for a single instance of alleged caffeine consumption to reverse an ablation or cause long-term arrhythmias, and that no physiological basis supports the plaintiff's theory.

After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding The Peninsula Beverly Hills was not negligent. Notably, the jury resolved the case at the first question on the verdict form and never reached the issue of causation. Post-verdict discussions confirmed the jury would have unanimously found for the defense on causation as well. The hotel is pursuing recovery of substantial expert fees and litigation costs in excess of $200,000.

Victor Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on behalf of our client, a national operator of bowling centers, in a case in which we have been involved since November 2021. While Mr. Campos handled the case for the past two years, Carole Buckner (Partner-San Diego, CA) and Andrew Sewell (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) previously worked up the case, enabling this huge team win for the Client. Plaintiff fell in a client-owned bowling alley, breaking her right shoulder and left leg. She underwent surgery to repair both fractures. Years of discovery ensued, including expert discovery. In 2024, the team filed an MSJ, which the Court denied. Subsequently, they continued to aggressively defend the case, pushing for essential discovery from Plaintiff. They filed and won two motions to compel and were awarded sanctions. Plaintiff did not conform to the Court's orders, so they filed a Motion for Contempt and for Terminating Sanctions. The Court granted the Motion for Terminating Sanctions and dismissed the case with prejudice.
 

Gershom “Koby” Koomson Jr. (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) and Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) secured summary judgment in Stanislaus County Superior Court, Modesto, California, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s security officer clients. The plaintiff in this matter alleged negligent use of a firearm after being shot during an encounter with our clients. The security officers responded to an alarm call at an elementary/middle school where the plaintiff was unlawfully present. The security officers engaged the plaintiff to stop suspected criminal activity. However, rather than comply, the plaintiff jumped into his vehicle and nearly ran over one of the security officers; he then attempted to run over the other as he fled the scene. Faced with an immediate threat to life, our client discharged his firearm, striking the plaintiff.

Following nearly two years of litigation – including extensive motion practice, jailhouse interviews, and challenging interactions with the plaintiff’s counsel, Koby and Victor successfully refuted the plaintiff’s claims. In particular, they successfully defended against the plaintiff’s arguments for statute of limitations tolling based on COVID-19 emergency orders and capitalized on critical procedural missteps in the plaintiff’s case. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our clients, defeating the plaintiff’s $3 million demand.

​Robert Cooper (Of Counsel-Los Angeles) and Luanne Rutherford (Of Counsel-San Francisco) secured a decision by the First Appellate District for the California Court of Appeal affirming summary judgment by the San Mateo Superior Court in favor of Wilson Elser’s client, Portola Valley Ranch Association. The Association had denied an application for construction of an accessory dwelling unit and a new garage submitted by Association members Craig and Michelle Opperman. The Oppermans sued the Association, alleging their application had been wrongfully denied. Luanne Rutherford filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Association, citing the Business Judgment Rule as well as extensive evidence to show that the Association had conducted a fair investigation before denying the application. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association and awarded the Association $140,419.49 for its attorneys’ fees and costs. The Oppermans appealed to the California Court of Appeal, First District. Robert Cooper prepared the briefs and submissions and argued the appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Association and affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court of Appeal, sua sponte, certified its opinion for publication. 

Rosy Shrestha (Associate-Los Angeles), Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles),  and Carlos E. MacManus (Of Counsel-Los Angeles) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, for Wilson Elser’s security guard company client. The plaintiff, a security guard employed by our client, was working at a dialysis center. His regular duties included opening the center for employees and customers. On the date of the subject incident, the plaintiff used a crowbar from his personal vehicle to open the sliding metallic gate. The gate fell on his leg, shattering his ankle and causing severe vascular damage. The plaintiff alleges vascular issues, which are creating ongoing exposure well in excess of seven figures, with the plaintiff’s last demand at mediation at $4,000,000. Rosy and Carlos crafted a meritorious argument establishing that our client was entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed facts established that the plaintiff was not performing any work for the security company when the accident occurred, as his attempted repair of the gate fell outside his duties and responsibilities as a security guard. The court agreed and granted Wilson Elser’s motion for summary judgment, a significant win in a jurisdiction where summary judgment victories are notoriously rare. 

Brian Cieniawski (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ), Celeena Pompeo (Partner-Orange County | Los Angeles, CA), and Phoenix, Arizona, associates Nicholas Merritt and Marcus Martinez defended an major transportation client regarding a tractor–trailer incident in Mohave County, Arizona, in which plaintiff alleged that multiple driver side wheels separated from a trailer hauling freight. The plaintiff attempted to add our client as a defendant more than five months after the two year limitations period expired. Our defense focused on a straightforward statute of limitations bar under A.R.S. § 12 542 and the inapplicability of fictitious defendant practice to an out of time party addition; we also emphasized the absence of timely notice or any “mistake” in identity to satisfy Rule 15(c)’s relation back requirements, and the availability of public information that would have identified the trailer’s owner earlier. The court granted our motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Joseph Francoeur (Partner-New York, NY), Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), and Ronald Weiner (Of Counsel-New York, NY) obtained dismissal in defending a local Hawai‘i attorney in a significant ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i. In this high-profile lawsuit, under litigation since 2018, brought by the plaintiff against a large Medical Center and several other Hawai‘i-based medical providers, donor organizations, and attorneys, the court dismissed the action, except for a potential claim against the plaintiff’s own counsel. The case stemmed from the 2016 death of the plaintiff’s daughter and subsequent organ donation procedures. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, ruling that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise legally insufficient. The court also issued an order to show cause, requiring the plaintiff to provide additional information to support her malpractice claim by October 20, 2025, or face dismissal of the entire case. With this ruling, all claims against the medical providers, hospital, donor organizations, government entities, and opposing counsel are concluded. The only remaining avenue for the plaintiff is to pursue a properly supported malpractice claim against her former attorney.

Jaqueline Harding (Partner-Los Angeles) successfully defended a global car manufacturer client before the California Labor Commissioner against a claim brought by a long-term employee alleging wrongful withholding of a nondiscretionary production/performance bonus and associated waiting time penalties. The employee asserted entitlement to the bonus despite not meeting the program’s qualifying criteria.

The California Labor Commissioner ruled in favor of our client, finding that the company’s bonus program constituted a clear and unambiguous contractual agreement that specifically outlined the eligibility requirements for who qualified to receive bonuses. The Commissioner noted that, despite multiple discussions with management, the employee failed to meet the performance standards necessary to be eligible for the bonus. The Commissioner issued an Order, Decision and Award denying the bonus payment and waiting time penalties.

Partners Paul Dougherty (Los Angeles, CA), Greg Lee (Los Angeles, CA), and Taylor Allin (Phoenix, AZ) with Shirley Jin (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a Chinese tire manufacturer based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The lawsuit arose from a highway rollover accident in which the rear tire of the plaintiff’s motorcycle, which had been manufactured at the client’s plant in Jiangsu, China, experienced a tread/belt separation. The plaintiff argued that the Chinese client had sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona based on, among other things, marketing and sales throughout the United States, a website, authorized retailers in Arizona, and the issuance of a recall by a domestic subsidiary that allegedly impacted Arizona. After taking the motion to dismiss under submission for more than nine months, the district judge ultimately agreed with the defense team that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of establishing sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona, and granted their motion to dismiss without leave to amend. 

Mark Ledwin (Partner-NY), Valeria Granata (Partner-Los Angeles), and Natalia Duque (Of Counsel-Los Angeles) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of the firm’s insurance company client. In this heavily litigated breach of contract case, the Wilson Elser team argued that while the workers' compensation insurance policy in question was enforceable, the defendant had breached the insurance contract by failing to pay our client the required premiums. Despite the defense counsel’s disputing the premium payment failure, Valeria’s lengthy and persuasive oral argument resulted in the court granting Wilson Elser’s motion for summary judgment, alleviating the need for trial, slated to start in just a few weeks.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) obtained a ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i in which the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation to grant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, judgment against a construction company, confirming that there is no insurance coverage for claims related to a disputed construction project in Kauai. The ruling stems from allegations by homeowners regarding serious construction deficiencies in their custom retirement home. According to court findings, the insured’s insurance application contained material misrepresentations, failing to disclose known disputes and contractor defaults before the Lloyd’s policy was issued. The court also determined that coverage was barred for multiple independent reasons, including that the claims arose before the policy’s retroactive date; the allegations involved construction activities that were outside the scope of the covered “business activities" as defined by the professional liability policy covering design work; and other policy exclusions applied for workmanship, breach of contract, and known claims. If adopted by the district judge, the ruling will relieve Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s from any duty to defend or indemnify the insured in connection with the project. The recommendation now moves to the district court for final approval.

Joshua Praw (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) and Vanessa Natividad (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) prevailed on a motion for summary adjudication in Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles, on behalf of a stone countertop distributor in Orange County. The plaintiff, a career stone cutter, was diagnosed with silicosis. He sued our client, among dozens of defendants, alleging the client supplied him with natural and engineered stone slabs that he subsequently worked on or around. He further alleged that the slabs released respirable crystalline silica that he inhaled, causing him to develop silicosis. Of the causes of action against our client, the plaintiff alleged that the client fraudulently concealed the dangers of the products. Joshua and Vanessa successfully brought a motion for summary adjudication on the cause of action for fraudulent concealment, resolving that claim in our client’s favor.

Joshua Praw (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) and Vanessa Natividad (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) secured summary adjudication in Los Angeles Superior Court for Wilson Elser’s client, a stone countertop retailer in Los Angeles County. The plaintiff, a career stone cutter, was diagnosed with silicosis. He sued our client, among dozens of defendants, alleging that the client supplied him with natural and engineered stone slabs that he subsequently worked on or around, and that these slabs released respirable crystalline silica, which he inhaled, causing his silicosis. As to the causes of action specifically brought against our client, the plaintiff alleged that the client failed to warn him of the danger, fraudulently concealed the dangers of the products, and sought punitive damages against the client. Joshua and Vanessa brought a motion for summary adjudication regarding the allegations of failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and the prayer for punitive damages. Wilson Elser’s motion for summary adjudication on all three issues was granted.

Dean Rocco (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Jack DeWolfe (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) obtained a defense verdict on a religious harassment and discrimination case in arbitration. The plaintiff nurse alleged her employer, a health care facility, wrongfully denied her request for an exemption to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate and harassed her based on her asserted religious beliefs. Dean and Jack established that alleged comments at work did not constitute unlawful harassment, and the circumstances surrounding the employer's original denial of the exemption request, combined with its eventual reversal of that decision, did not constitute a failure to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs or provide grounds for the employee to quit and sue for constructive wrongful termination.

Gregory Lee (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Carlos MacManus (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) successfully defended an international owner and operator of destination ski resorts against a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County by plaintiffs involved in a ski accident at a well-known ski resort in Colorado. Although the client is based in Colorado, the plaintiffs argued that general and/or specific jurisdiction could be exercised over the client in California based on the client’s purported operation and control over ski resorts in California, as well as marketing and advertisements targeting California residents and harm caused in California. The judge ultimately agreed with Greg and Carlos that the client was not subject to general or specific jurisdiction in California and dismissed the client. In addition, because the plaintiffs  had placed all of their eggs in California’s basket, the Colorado statute of limitations expired while they fought to maintain jurisdiction over the client in California.

Daniel B. Wolfberg (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) secured a summary judgment for a vehicle owner in Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The plaintiffs (mother, father, and sister of the decedent) sued our client after the decedent took our client’s car without authorization and then crashed and died in that car. The plaintiffs blamed the decedent's passing on our client and on a personal car-sharing platform for allegedly allowing plaintiffs' decedent to drive the car.

Diana Hendry (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) and Michelle Press (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) obtained a motion for summary judgment on behalf of an insurance company and broker in a case disputing the cancellation of a homeowners’ policy. The plaintiff homeowner applied through his mortgage broker for a homeowners’ policy, which was issued based on the information provided. Shortly thereafter, the insurer discovered that the information provided by the homeowner was incorrect and timely sent a notice of cancellation to the policyholder by U.S. Mail and email. The home was destroyed by fire many months later; plaintiff’s claim was denied and the plaintiff asserted he had never received notice of the cancellation. In support of their motion for summary judgment, Diana and Michelle submitted a certificate of mailing and the emails, which the Court found sufficient to meet the client’s initial burden of demonstrating that it complied with the cancellation requirements in New York Insurance Law and therefore was entitled to the presumption that notice was received. (The emails bolstered the proof of mailing, but were themselves insufficient to comply with the Insurance Law requirement.) However, the plaintiff’s claim that he did not receive the notice was insufficient to meet his burden to prove that the insurer failed to conform with the strict statutory cancellation requirements. On that basis, the Court dismissed the coverage action against our client.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Jonathan Patillo (Associate-Las Vegas, NV) obtained a favorable ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which denied a motion for sanctions against our client jet ski rental company in a wrongful death lawsuit. The plaintiffs had sought spoliation sanctions, alleging that the rental company failed to preserve video footage related to a 2020 jet ski rental transaction. Wilson Elser was brought in after the original counsel failed to bring a limitation action in federal court. The court ruled in favor of the rental company, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a duty to preserve the footage at the time it was automatically deleted. Through their representation, Otis and Jonathan were able to show the court that the company acted properly and in good faith throughout this process. The denial of sanctions eliminates any adverse inference against the company and strengthens its defense as the case proceeds. The case also is significant in discussing the various standards with respect to preservation of evidence and issues concerning spoilation.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Vladyslava Turner (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) obtained dismissals of prominent Canadian clients based on key issues concerning lack of personal jurisdiction and proper service under Hague Convention. 

• In the first case., the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss against a Canadian ground handler, determining that the company lacked sufficient ties to California to justify personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the ground handler contractor caused her injury at the Vancouver Port, but the court found that it was not bound by the forum selection clause in the cruise line’s passenger contracts. In addition, the plaintiff had failed to show she complied with properly serving the Canadian entity as required by the Hague Service Convention.
   
• In the second case, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted a motion to quash service of summons as to two Canadian entities allegedly involved in sponsoring a virtual reality event where the plaintiff says he lost his balance and fell. The court ruled that the service of summons on these defendants in Canada failed to comply with the Hague Service Convention, rendering it invalid.

These rulings highlight the complexity of jurisdictional challenges in cross-border litigation and the necessity of adhering to proper legal procedures when attempting to bring Canadian defendants into U.S. courts.