Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

A civil jury in Orange County, Florida, ruled in favor of Hugh Miller in a defamation lawsuit against Fernando Alejandro. Miller alleged that Alejandro published false and damaging statements that harmed his reputation, emotional well-being, and financial stability. During trial, Miller presented evidence linking the defamatory statements to worsened health, medical costs, and significant economic losses. Alejandro’s defense argued truth, opinion, and lack of causation, but the jury rejected these arguments. On April 24, 2025, the jury awarded Miller a total of $194,795.17, including compensation for reputational damage, health injury, medical expenses, and lost earnings. The verdict confirmed that Alejandro’s statements directly caused substantial harm to Miller, warranting full compensatory damages.

A San Diego County jury ruled in favor of Hanh M. Bui, M.D., a Professional Medical Corporation, in a contract dispute arising from the sale of assets from Dr. Kenneth Carr’s cardiology practice. The lawsuit centered on an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Promissory Note that required Dr. Carr to meet several Conditional Obligations before payment became due. Dr. Bui’s Corporation alleged that Dr. Carr failed to satisfy essential conditions, including maintaining his employment agreement, settling financial obligations with former employees, and transferring all clinical research accounts and contracts. The defense argued that Dr. Carr substantially performed and that any shortcomings were minor or caused by the Plaintiff. After reviewing extensive testimony and financial evidence, the jury found Dr. Carr in breach and awarded $194,601 in damages. The verdict confirmed that the unfulfilled conditions materially harmed Dr. Bui’s Corporation and disrupted the intended transition of the cardiology practice.

A Contra Costa County jury ruled in favor of Sherene Fearon in a motor vehicle negligence case stemming from a 2018 collision near I-680 in Danville. Fearon argued that driver Tammy Ault caused the crash through unsafe operation, while co-defendant Robert Nobriga was liable as the vehicle’s owner. Ault and Nobriga denied negligence and claimed Fearon shared blame. After trial, the jury found Ault negligent and responsible for causing Fearon’s injuries. They also rejected all comparative fault claims, assigning Fearon zero responsibility. The Court entered judgment in July 2025, including 10% annual interest until paid.

A jury ruled that Officer Devendra Persaud of the City of Orlando acted negligently when he entered a busy intersection against a red light with emergency lights but no siren, colliding with Brianna Becker’s vehicle. Despite establishing fault, the jury awarded Becker no damages for her alleged injuries, medical expenses, or loss of life enjoyment. The verdict reflected shared responsibility and emphasized statutory standards for emergency vehicle operation. Becker claimed the crash caused permanent injuries and aggravated pre-existing conditions, while the City argued she failed to yield and challenged the severity of her injuries. The outcome underscored how liability caps, comparative negligence, and emergency response protocols can limit recovery in municipal auto-collision cases.

A San Francisco jury ruled in favor of American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. on April 24, 2025, concluding the company was not negligent in a 2022 vehicle collision involving plaintiff Adam O’Connor. The verdict ended deliberations at the first question on the verdict form, preventing any findings on causation, comparative fault, or damages. O’Connor had sought compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering stemming from an August 4, 2022 crash, which he claimed resulted from careless operation of an ambulance vehicle. The defense maintained that the ambulance operator acted safely and that O’Connor contributed to the collision. The jury’s finding that AMR bore no negligence effectively resolved the case in favor of the defendants.

A Miami-Dade jury awarded a total of $30,000 to Ruben Manzo and Greyce Pavon Martinez after finding both Brothers Painting of South Florida, Inc. and Manzo negligent in a 2021 traffic collision on SW 177th Avenue. The jury awarded each Plaintiff $15,000 for past medical expenses and found no permanent injury. Despite the jury’s findings, the court later entered Final Judgment for the Defendant after granting a post-trial motion, declaring Brothers Painting the prevailing party and reserving jurisdiction to address costs and attorney’s fees. The ruling closed the case in June 2025.

A jury in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, awarded $70,000 to Plaintiff Sheena Burrus in a negligence lawsuit stemming from a June 28, 2022 vehicle collision. The crash involved driver Edgar Alvarez, who operated a vehicle within the scope of his employment for Concrete America LLC. The jury found Alvarez negligent and held his employer vicariously liable under Florida law. The verdict included $10,000 in past medical expenses and $60,000 in future medical costs, reflecting the jury’s finding of permanent injury. The ruling, issued March 21, 2025, held the Defendants responsible for the lasting physical and financial harm sustained by Ms. Burrus.

A Miami-Dade County jury awarded $174,456 to Plaintiff Chantanell N. Williams in a negligence lawsuit arising from a vehicle collision involving Defendant Raphael Alexander Pichardo and others. The jury found the Defendants fully responsible for the crash and rejected arguments of comparative negligence and failure to mitigate. The award included medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering damages, affirming the Defendants' liability for the injuries and financial losses sustained by the Plaintiff. The verdict was issued on March 24, 2025.

A Miami-Dade jury delivered a decisive verdict on March 24, 2025, finding Pedro M. Menichetti, Pablo A. Menichetti, and Meni Tech LLC liable for the wrongful taking of funds from Plaintiff Christian Angarita and Level One Construction LLC. The core of the dispute revolved around the Defendants’ actions, which the jury ultimately determined constituted Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, and the more serious charge of Civil Theft under Florida Statute § 772.11. The Defendants had maintained that the funds were merely an investment in a "verbal business agreement" and not stolen property. However, the jury rejected this defense, awarding $233,000.00 in compensatory damages for the direct financial loss. Crucially, the finding of Civil Theft resulted in a triple (treble) damage award of $699,000.00, bringing the total judgment against the Menichetti family and their company to $982,000.00. This verdict sends a strong message regarding the legal consequences of misappropriating business funds in Florida.

The case of Davis v. Home 2 U 9, LLC, et al., filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, reached a $1,000,000 settlement, concluding the intense litigation over a residential care facility's failure to supervise a dangerous resident. The plaintiffs, Carlos Davis and his minor daughter, H.D. Doe, had sued the operator, HOME 2 U 9, LLC, for negligence and premises liability. The complaint charged that the defendant completely breached its duty when it allowed a registered sex offender, known to pose a significant risk, to leave the facility unsupervised while the overnight caregiver slept. That lack of supervision directly resulted in a devastating incident that caused H.D. Doe to suffer severe and lasting emotional distress, anxiety, and depression. The defendant consistently denied liability, arguing the resident's criminal acts were unforeseeable. However, after extensive legal proceedings and the exchange of strong expert testimony on facility protocol and child psychology, the parties agreed to the seven-figure settlement in August 2025, thus avoiding a highly publicized jury trial.

A high-stakes patent battle in the Eastern District of Texas ended with a sweeping victory for Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited. The dispute centered on allegations that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. incorporated Pictiva’s patented OLED display technology into their products without authorization. Pictiva filed suit in late 2023, accusing Samsung of direct and indirect infringement involving patents such as the ’547, ’223, ’164, and ’425 patents. Despite the efforts, the jury found that Samsung directly infringed several asserted patent claims and rejected Samsung’s invalidity arguments. The jury also concluded that the infringement was willful, exposing Samsung to potential enhanced damages. On November 3, 2025, the jury awarded Pictiva $191.4 million in reasonable royalty damages, structured as a one-time lump-sum payment covering Samsung’s unauthorized use of the OLED technology. The verdict established that Pictiva’s patents were valid, enforceable, and infringed, marking a significant win for the Plaintiffs in one of the year’s major patent cases.

A New Haven jury delivered a focused but decisive verdict for Plaintiff Eleanor Mikulski in her negligence lawsuit against driver Sunita Kelly and her employer, Columbus Chemists, LLC. The case stemmed from an April 12, 2022 rear-end collision on Ella T. Grasso Boulevard, where Kelly, driving a company vehicle, struck the back of Mikulski’s Honda. Mikulski described significant lower-back injuries, including disc disease and interfacet arthrosis at L5-S1, which caused lasting pain, limited mobility, and financial strain. She alleged that Kelly failed to maintain a proper lookout, drove too fast for conditions, and did not provide any warning before impact. Although the Defendants admitted the crash occurred and acknowledged Kelly’s employment status, they denied negligence and challenged the severity and origin of Mikulski’s injuries. After hearing testimony from the Plaintiff’s medical experts, the jury found both Kelly and her employer liable. On November 7, 2025, the jury awarded Mikulski $4,858 for past medical expenses but declined to grant non-economic damages. The verdict confirmed negligence while limiting compensation to documented economic losses.