Joshua Praw (Partner-San Francisco, CA) and Vanessa Natividad (Of Counsel-San Francisco, CA) secured summary judgment for Wilson Elser's client, a stone retailer, in a toxic tort action filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. All claims against the client were dismissed just one month before trial.
 
The plaintiff, a stone fabricator, sued dozens of defendants, including Wilson Elser's client, alleging that they manufactured, distributed, or otherwise sold stone countertops that the plaintiff ultimately fabricated. During the fabrication process, respirable crystalline silica was released, and the plaintiff was diagnosed with silicosis, an incurable and life-threatening lung disease. In moving for summary judgment, Joshua and Vanessa demonstrated that the plaintiff could not accurately or specifically identify the client's involvement in his alleged exposure. The motion further established that, even crediting all the plaintiff's claims, the client's products accounted for less than 1% of the plaintiff's overall exposure to respirable crystalline silica. Joshua and Vanessa argued that, on this record, no reasonable jury could find that the client's involvement was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to the plaintiff's silicosis diagnosis.
 
The court agreed, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Wilson Elser's client, thus eliminating the need for a trial.

Stephanie Yee (Associate-San Francisco, CA) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) secured dismissal of a highly contested legal malpractice action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) filed on behalf of Wilson Elser’s attorney clients. In support of their motion, Stephanie and Peter successfully argued that the attorneys’ conduct constituted protected speech and warranted dismissal at the pleading stage. After taking the motion under submission for many months, the judge dismissed all claims against our clients and set a briefing schedule for an attorney’s fees motion.

Jianlin Song (Partner-San Francisco) and Trishala Parikh (Associate-San Francisco) obtained dismissal with prejudice for two nationally recognized nonprofit eye bank clients on a demurrer in the Superior Court of Solana County, California. The case involved allegations of unauthorized organ donation arising from a highly sensitive end-of-life situation. The court sustained our demurrer in full, dismissing negligence claims against our clients without leave to amend and concluding that the plaintiffs could not state a viable cause of action as a matter of law. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.

​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. 

San Francisco associates Quincy Pham and Stephanie Yee, along with partner Peter Catalanotti were successful at the California Court of Appeal in a contested legal malpractice case. The Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case based on a demurrer sustained without leave to amend. 

Quincy Pham (Associate-San Francisco) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco) had a demurrer sustained without leave to amend in the California Superior Court of San Francisco County, in a contested legal malpractice case brought against Wilson Elser’s attorney client. Notwithstanding having afforded the plaintiffs several opportunities to amend their complaint, the court agreed with Quincy and Peter’s arguments challenging the legal sufficiency of the complaint, sustaining their demurrer without leave to amend based upon the applicable statute of limitations, CCP Section 340.6, and dismissing the case. 

Audrey Tam (Of Counsel-San Francisco, CA) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) had a demurrer sustained without leave to amend in a contested commercial real estate case. The plaintiff originally declared the named buyer as a plaintiff but later amended to include only the assignees as plaintiffs. On behalf of our commercial real estate broker client, Audrey and Peter filed a demurrer arguing that the assignees lacked standing to bring the claims. Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition, the court sustained the demurrer, finding that the assignees themselves could not amend their allegations to alleviate their lack of standing and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Damages were estimated well into the hundreds of thousands. 

San Francisco partners Peter Catalanotti and Madonna Herman joined forces with associates Quincy Pham, Inna Nytochka, and Mara Sackman to obtain dismissal of claims of professional negligence and misrepresentation against our broker client by a winery based in Napa, California. Our client had assisted the winery in procuring and renewing a series of insurance policies for several years. Following the Napa Valley wildfires in October 2017, testing of the winery’s grapes showed evidence of a defect called “smoke taint.” The winery waited until early Summer 2019 to reach out to the client regarding the possibility of filing a claim with the carrier, and until March 2020 to file a claim through their new broker. In granting the team’s motion, the Napa County Superior Court found that the client did not breach the heightened duty of care owed by an expert in insuring the winery industry, and the client did not make any of the false representations alleged. This decision was particularly crucial because the client’s insurance agent passed away early in our representation. The most recent demand before the Order was issued was $1.75 million.

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.

Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) and Audrey Tam (Of Counsel-San Francisco, CA) won summary judgment on a hotly contested legal malpractice case in Orange County Superior Court. Audrey’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on statute of limitations grounds (CCP §340.6). Prior to the motion, the plaintiff’s demand was more than $700,000. The Court signed a judgment awarding approximately $16,000 in costs.

Joshua Praw (Of Counsel-San Francisco) and Kelsie Longerbeam (Associate-San Francisco) prevailed on their motion for summary judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court for Wilson Elser’s client, a natural and artificial stone product retailer. In this toxic tort claim, the plaintiff sued our client, among dozens of other defendants, alleging they each manufactured, distributed, or otherwise supplied products containing respirable crystalline silica, which the plaintiff inhaled while working on or around their products throughout his career as a stone fabricator, sustaining serious injury. In their motion for summary judgment, Joshua and Kelsie argued that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that our client supplied any products to him or any of his worksites throughout his 20-year career. The court agreed, granting the motion and ruling that the plaintiff “fails to meet his burden of proving a triable issue of material fact remains” regarding whether Wilson Elser’s client caused his injuries, thwarting a last multi million dollar demand.

​Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) and Quincy Pham (Associate-San Francisco, CA) defended a fiercely contested case filed by real property sellers against our real estate broker and agent clients. Quincy had a demurrer sustained without leave to amend on all causes of action. The sellers alleged professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, vicarious liability, promissory fraud, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After only the second round of demurrers, the court dismissed the case against our clients.