Jump To Navigation
News

Personal Injury

[02/06] Ga. court to hear case of possible gator attack
[02/06] Police: Man accidentally shoots self at gun show
[02/06] Mushroom pickers lost hope, considered eating dog
[02/06] 3rd US cruise ship sails after virus outbreak
[02/03] 35 cases of illness tied to Pa. farm's raw milk
[02/03] Maine girl bouncing back after 6-organ transplant
[02/02] Calif. Rep. calls for inquiry into stun gun use
[02/02] Woman takes Honda to small-claims, wins big
[02/02] 550 seeking restitution from Milwaukee Archdiocese
[02/01] Lawmakers seek texting while driving ban - again

More...

Health Care

[02/06] Patients and Family Engagement Central Focus of Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative Two-day Stakeholder Conference
[02/06] Net Enforcers Unveils New, Improved Channel Monitoring Client Portal
[02/06] American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Launches Interactive, Online Pharmacology Course
[02/06] Watch an Average Smile Transform Into a Radiant Smile With SmileSimplicity
[02/06] Dr. Scott Noren Announces "The Occupation of Time Warner Cable" Via 35 Minutes of Piloted Aerial Banner Message in Albany, New York Today
[02/06] The Walmart Foundation Donates $9.5 Million to Help U.S. Families Access the Information Needed to Live Healthier Lives
[02/06] Inovio Pharmaceuticals to Present at BIO CEO & Investor Conference
[02/06] A push for family input to detect dementia earlier
[02/06] Junk foods widely available at elementary schools
[02/06] Smith & Nephew to pay $22.2M in US settlements

More...

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

[01/30] Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.

[01/27] AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

More...

Elder Law

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

[10/20] NY Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v. MFY Legal Services, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division reversing a trial court order enjoining defendants from violating an assisted living facilities' visitor access guidelines, judgment is affirmed where the guidelines impermissibly restrict advocate access to facility residents, and violate 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH's interpretation of that regulation.

[09/21] In re: Lemington Home for the Aged
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on the grounds that the business judgment rule and the doctrine of in pari delicto bar plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty, judgment is reversed where there are genuine disputes of material facts.

[08/23] Estate of Dito
In a probate petition alleging financial elder abuse, judgment of the trial court dismissing complaint without leave to amend on the ground that it is barred by res judicata is reversed as modified, where the petition is not barred as a matter of law on the basis of an earlier dispute because the issues as presented differ .

[08/12] Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley
In a tort and injury action alleging elder abuse, willful misconduct, and wrongful death, judgment of the trial court dismissing action is affirmed because plaintiffs had not alleged conduct that qualified as elder abuse, as distinguished from negligence, and where the willful misconduct and wrongful death claims were untimely.

[06/28] Hartley v. Superior Court (Monex Deposit Co.)
In a petition for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court's order compelling petitioner to arbitrate her claims against real parties in interest, order is vacated where trial court erred by finding the parties' arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably gives the arbitrator the exclusive authority to decide the gateway issue of unconscionability, or arbitrability.

More...

How Can We Help?

NOTE: Labels in bold are required.

Contact Information
  1. disclaimer.

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.

The Brandi Law Firm represents seriously injured clients and their family members throughout California, the San Francisco Bay Area, including Northern California, San Mateo County, including Daly City and Redwood City, the East Bay, including Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and the communities of Oakland, Alameda, Fairfield, Hayward, Walnut Creek, Concord, Antioch; Marin County, including San Rafael, Sausalito, and Novato; North Bay including Napa, Richmond; Redwood City; Redding, Ukiah, Sacramento, Santa Rosa. Santa Clara County and the South Bay, including San Jose, Santa Cruz, Milpitas, Campbell, and Sunnyvale; Sacramento County; San Joaquin County, including Stockton and Tracy; Stanislaus County, including Modesto and Turlock; Fresno; Humboldt County; Southern California cities including Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside and Orange County, as well as the following cities in Nevada: Reno, Las Vegas, Sun Valley, Carson City and Boulder City; and Arizona: Chandler, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Maricopa, Paradise Valley, Prescott, Scottsdale, Sedona, Tempe and Tucson.