Represented an exotic car manufacturer in obtaining a defense verdict of no liability and
no defect in jury trial involving product liability, breach of warranty, consumer statute, and fraud claims.
Not exact matches
However, the Court found that the
defects in the question to the
jury did not necessitate a new
trial, and that the
trial judge was correct not to poll the
jury in the circumstances, despite having the jurisdiction to do so.
He has tried more than 50
jury trials to verdict including cases
in the area of Title VII, ADEA, Section 1983, police practices and procedure, commercial and residential construction
defect cases, first party property, first party automobile, premises liability, products liability, trucking and automobile bodily injury lawsuits.
The $ 11 million ruling awarded by a
jury in a Topamax birth
defect case will stand, according to National
Trial Lawyers.
Successful defense of contractor at
trial involving allegations of construction
defects resulting
in jury verdict of $ 1.00.
Served as second - chair
trial counsel and secured defense verdict following seven - week
jury trial in the California Superior Court for the County of Orange of action for strict and negligent products liability and negligence based on allegations of design
defects, manufacturing
defects, and warning
defects.
Obtained a preliminary injunction, and after a 3-1/2 month
jury trial, obtained a multi-million dollar award
in favor of client, including an order requiring
defecting employees to repay portions of wages and bonuses received while engaging
in unfair competition.
The
trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on her failure to warn claim, and a
jury entered a verdict
in Merck's favor
in October 2011 on the design
defect claim.
The Plaintiff argued that there was no need to discharge the
jury and proper instructions «could cure any
defects in the
trial ``.
Defended same client against product
defect action, winning not guilty verdict
in highly publicized
jury trial.
The
trial court overruled a
jury verdict
in favor of the Buyers and entered judgment
in favor of the Seller and Broker, due to the Buyers» failure to present expert testimony on the property's diminution
in value due to the
defects.