Cases
We have obtained over $35 million total in settlements for our clients in the last 10 years. Some of our settlements include the following:
TORTS
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Habitability
Plaintiffs v. Owner X and Y
SETTLEMENT: The case settled after three mediations for $1,047,500
FACTS: The Plaintiffs, 50 adults and 40 minor children, were tenants in a low income apartment complex on Western Avenue in Los Angeles. During the relevant time, the property was owned by Owners X and Y. The Los Angeles Housing Department cited the property for multiple habitability violations including cockroaches and vermin infestation throughout the property. The conditions were allegedly abated by Owner X. Title was then transferred to Owner Y. In the same year, the Housing Department cited the property for multiple violations. Virtually every unit inspected contained the same habitability problems found under the old ownership. Owner Y failed to abate and a Substandard Order was issued.
CONTENTIONS: The tenants alleged they suffered rodent and insect bites, allergies, rashes and other physical symptoms arising from the conditions. The tenants sought damages for physical injury, emotional distress, and restitution of rent, property damage and statutory penalties pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1941.1. Owner X claimed that the conditions during its ownership were adequate and that the citations, which were timely abated, did not affect the health and safety of the tenants. Owner Y claimed that the violations identified on its watch were the result of poor long-term maintenance by Owner X. Both owners also made the standard arguments that the tenants exaggerated the conditions, did not complain about the conditions and their physical injuries lacked healthcare provider corroboration.
TORTS
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Habitability
Plaintiffs v. Doe Landlord
SETTLEMENT: The case settled for $1.675 million after three mediations.
FACTS: The Plaintiffs, 60 adults and 30 minor children, were tenants in a low income apartment building on Florence Avenue in Los Angeles. They alleged that for four consecutive years the defendants and its management company allowed the building to fall into disrepair resulting in sewage spills, destroyed and dirty sheetrock, mold and mildew, cockroaches and vermin, common area problems and a multitude of maintenance issues. The Los Angeles Housing Department cited the property annually but the landlord failed to abate due primarily to shoddy repair work. The Housing Department consequently issued a “Substandard Order”.
PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS: The tenants alleged rodent and insect bites, allergies, rashes and other physical symptoms as well as emotional distress arising from the conditions and harassment by management. The tenants sought damages for physical injury, emotional distress, and restitution of rent, property damage and statutory penalties pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1941.1.
DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: The Defendants claimed that the tenants exaggerated the extent and duration of the conditions, failed to make complaints about the conditions, caused the health and safety conditions with their poor housekeeping and messy eating habits and that the alleged physical symptoms were note supported by medical records.
PERSONAL INJURY
Slip and Fall
Plaintiff vs. XYZ Properties
SETTLEMENT: $230,000
FACTS: On the date in question, Plaintiff left her apartment to go to work and attempted to use the elevator at the subject premises. Plaintiff discovered that the elevator was out of order and was forced to descend a staircase at the subject premises. Plaintiff was exercising ordinary and reasonable care for her safety. However, the staircase was littered with newspaper, trash and other debris, and contained numerous defects and dangerous conditions. Moreover, at the above-mentioned time, it was still relatively dark, but there were no lights turned on to illuminate the staircase and aid plaintiff’s visibility. As a result, Plaintiff tumbled down the staircase and sustained severe injuries.
CONTENTIONS: The Plaintiff contended that prior to the date of the accident, Defendants, and each of them, including their agents, employees, representatives and predecessors, received numerous complaints from tenants regarding uninhabitable and unsafe living conditions at the subject premises. However, Defendants ignored such complaints and allowed the subject premises, including common areas, to remain in an unsafe, uninhabitable and dangerous condition, which caused and/or contributed to plaintiff’s accident and injuries.
Plaintiff also contended that Defendants were cited on several occasions by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services for violations of the Health Code, including unclean conditions and trash in common areas, as well as rodent, fly and cockroach infestations. Plaintiff was informed and believed, and thereupon alleged, that Defendants had not only failed to remedy the numerous health and safety problems at the subject premises, but had in fact engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to retaliate and punish tenants for their lawful and justified complaints by (among other things) threatening to report Hispanic tenants to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
INJURIES: Plaintiff sustained severe injuries during the fall, including (without limitation) two severe fractures, torn ligaments and internal bleeding in her left ankle, injuries to the left knee and lower back, and extreme pain and suffering, as set forth hereinafter. Plaintiff spent five days in the hospital and underwent several operations, including the implantation and subsequent removal of metal devices, screws and pins, and was forced to wear a cast on her leg for a substantial period of time.
PERSONAL INJURY
Dog Bite
Plaintiff vs. Defendants A, B, C
SETTLEMENT: $250,000
FACTS: On the date in question, Plaintiff and her friend went to visit Defendant C at the residence owned by Defendants A, B and C. As Defendant C was guiding Plaintiff and friend to his entry door, all of a sudden, Defendants' dog got up, attacked Plaintiff and bit her upper lip. The attack was unexpected in she was neither looking at the dog, nor was she gesturing to the dog. The attack was also unexpected in that Plaintiff had been at Defendants' residence before without any incidents. As a result of the dog’s bite, Plaintiff's upper lip was torn apart and her upper lip was nearly detached and separated from her face. As a result of the dog’s bite, she started bleeding heavily. She was summoned to the hospital where she was treated for her injuries.
CONTENTIONS: The Plaintiff contended that she was informed and believed that before this incident, two other people were attacked by the same dog. She was informed and believed that the attacks made on the two other people were unwarranted and without any provocations. She was aware that the dog’s attacks on the two other people were both witnessed by Defendant C. Plaintiff also contended that Defendant B knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities and she should not have allowed the animal to remain at her property. In fact, Defendant B was aware that the United States Postal Service would not deliver mail to the property because of the dog, and thus made arrangements to pick up the mail at the local post office.
INJURIES: Plaintiff's face remained disfigured as a result of the dog-bite injuries. She was informed by her doctor that she needed plastic surgery to recover from the injuries. She suffered tremendously because of her face disfigurement. Plaintiff incurred medical damages in excess of $50,000.00.
EMPLOYMENT
Discrimination & Wrongful Termination
Plaintiff vs. Supermarket X
SETTLEMENT: Low six-figure settlement
FACTS: Plaintiff, a 59-year old immigrant from El Salvador with Type II Diabetes was a long-term employee of Supermarket X. Plaintiff fell near but outside of his place of work, and broke his arm.
Subsequently, Plaintiff took a month off as medical leave at the request of his doctor. At the end of the one-month leave, Plaintiff’s doctor asked him to take an additional month off. When Plaintiff returned to work to present Defendant, Plaintiff's boss, with the doctor’s documentation relating to the second month of leave, the Defendant fired him by telling him that he was a “red flag” for the supermarket because he could “fall anytime in the store like the other day and it will be a liability.” The Defendant then told Plaintiff that the company would pay him for the month of December 2008 and “that would be it.” The Defendant then called Plaintiff’s supervisor into the meeting and the supervisor indicated that he agreed with the Defendant.
CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that he was unfairly terminated due to his age and illness. Plaintiff believed that Defendant discriminated against him and eventually terminated him: (1) because of his age, (2) because of his medical condition, (3) because Defendant regarded him as someone having a disability, (4) because of his having a record of disability, and/or (5) in retaliation for taking protected leave.