Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

The lawsuit, Valles v. Talbert Architectural Panel & Door, Inc., was filed in December 2020 by former non-exempt employee Miguel Valles, who alleged the company had systematically violated the California Labor Code. The core claims centered on failures to pay correct minimum wages and overtime, denial of legally mandated meal and rest periods, and issuance of inaccurate wage statements. The defense strongly denied liability, asserting that the company adhered to all labor laws and that any issues were isolated. After intense litigation, the parties reached a comprehensive class action settlement, which the Superior Court granted preliminary approval. The agreement established a Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $575,000 to resolve all claims, including PAGA penalties, providing financial relief to hundreds of affected current and former employees.

Ashley Sanchez, a passenger in a car driven by Rogelio Aleman, sued Julie and Laura Spinelli, claiming that their reckless lane change caused a violent crash at the entrance to Andrea’s Plaza on Route 69. She also named Aleman and vehicle owner Julio Estrada-Sanchez as additional defendants. Sanchez argued that Julie Spinelli moved into an open lane to pass stopped traffic without checking for oncoming vehicles, while Aleman attempted a left turn across her path. The impact injured Sanchez, leading to neck, shoulder, and back sprains and months of medical care. At trial, Sanchez’s legal team presented medical records showing chiropractic, orthopedic, and imaging expenses totaling over $16,000. The defense countered that Aleman caused the crash by failing to yield and that Spinelli’s maneuver was lawful given traffic conditions. After deliberations, the jury found both drivers negligent—assigning 55% fault to Julie and Laura Spinelli and 45% fault to Aleman. They awarded $31,180.84 in total damages, including $16,180.84 in medical expenses and $15,000 for pain and suffering. After reducing the award based on Aleman’s share of fault, the court entered a final judgment of $17,149.46 in favor of Sanchez. The verdict marked a partial win for the plaintiff, recognizing the shared responsibility of both drivers while compensating Sanchez for her injuries and medical costs. The case highlighted the importance of safe lane changes and yielding during heavy morning traffic on Connecticut’s busy commuter routes.

The case of Mario Cardona v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. 22STCV17208) centered on allegations of whistleblower retaliation and workplace discrimination within the Los Angeles Police Department. Sgt. Mario Cardona claimed he suffered retaliation after refusing a supervisor’s request to rescind a parking ticket, which he believed violated state law. Filed in May 2022, the lawsuit accused the City of violating California’s Labor Code §1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by allegedly transferring Cardona and referring him to the Risk Management Executive Committee in retaliation for his report. The City denied wrongdoing, arguing that his reassignment and internal review were legitimate administrative decisions unrelated to any disclosure. The case went to trial before Judge Maurice A. Leiter in May 2025. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the jury found that although Cardona reasonably believed his disclosure concerned a violation of law, the City did not take any adverse employment action against him. The jury concluded that neither the transfer nor the referral constituted retaliation or discrimination. On June 13, 2025, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a verdict in favor of the City, awarding no damages to the plaintiff and granting the City recovery of its legal costs. The outcome closed nearly three years of litigation and reaffirmed that personnel decisions made by the department were lawful and non-retaliatory.

The case of Sheila Esfahani Goe, et al. v. Zirius, Inc., et al., filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, concluded with a confidential settlement where the defendants, including Mountain View Mortuary, agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of $950,000. The family had sued after discovering the alleged mishandling of a deceased relative's remains, claiming severe emotional distress, negligence, and a breach of the professional trust implicit in mortuary services. The complaint detailed that the defendants had failed to properly prepare and manage the body, causing the family immense mental anguish. By settling, both parties avoided a full trial on the claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, bringing the emotionally charged lawsuit to an official conclusion.

A Los Angeles jury returned a $3.06 million verdict against the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and one of its officers, Daniel Castaneda, following the 2022 fatal shooting of Leonel Chavez. The civil case, filed by Mr. Chavez's family for wrongful death and survival actions, centered on the negligent use of deadly force and institutional failures in training and supervision by the CHP. The jury determined that both the officer's action and the CHP's negligence were substantial factors in Mr. Chavez's death. While total damages were assessed at $6,000,000, the final award was reduced to $3,060,000 due to the jury's finding of 49% comparative negligence on the part of Leonel Chavez himself. The verdict is a significant finding of liability against the officer (51% fault) and the state agency he represented.

In a historic federal court decision in Louisiana, a jury returned a $42.75 million verdict against the private jail operator, LaSalle Corrections, Inc., for the 2015 in-custody death of Erie Moore Sr. at Richwood Correctional Center. The lawsuit, brought by Moore's children, alleged that correctional staff used excessive force and, crucially, exhibited "deliberate indifference" by failing to provide immediate and necessary medical care after the incident, a violation of Moore’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. This record-setting civil rights judgment held the corporate entity and its employees responsible for systemic failures in training and supervision, emphasizing the jury's commitment to holding the private prison industry accountable for the safety and well-being of detainees.

In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, the jury delivered a verdict on September 18, 2025, in favor of homeowners Rene Mateo Jr. and Janill Mateo against their insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The Mateos had sued for breach of contract after the insurer allegedly failed to adequately cover direct physical losses sustained during the policy period. The core dispute was whether the damage resulted from a covered event, like a wind-created opening, or an excluded cause, such as wear and tear—a defense the insurer failed to prove. The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $61,871.25 in compensatory damages, comprising $19,696.56 for roof damages and $42,174.69 for interior damages caused by water intrusion. This verdict affirms that the insurance policy covered the homeowners’ loss and concluded the matter of factual causation in favor of the plaintiffs.

In a personal injury trial concluding in September 2025 in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, the jury returned a verdict firmly in favor of the defendants, Grandscape Professional Landscaping Service, Inc., and its employee, Armando Ortiz. The plaintiff, Gustavo Castellanos Caicedo, had sought damages exceeding $30,000.00 for severe injuries resulting from a 2021 collision involving his bicycle and a vehicle associated with the landscaping crew's work. The central question posed to the jury was whether Armando Ortiz's actions constituted negligence that legally caused the plaintiff's injuries. The jury explicitly answered "NO," concluding that Mr. Ortiz was not negligent. As a result, the jury's deliberations ended immediately, and no damages were calculated or awarded, confirming a complete defense victory against all claims, including the wife's derivative claim for loss of consortium.

A Santa Clara County jury found no negligence by driver Bruce Tran in a 2023 high-speed rear-end crash on Highway 101, ruling fully in favor of the defense. The plaintiffs, Ayron Romo, Elva Romo, and Ana Mendez, claimed severe injuries but failed to prove fault against Tran or vehicle owner Tonya Lien. The verdict, delivered on September 3, 2025, absolved all defendants of liability and closed the case without damages awarded.

A major lawsuit alleging catastrophic injury and governmental negligence in Los Angeles concluded with a significant $9.5 million settlement before the case reached a jury. Plaintiffs Jean Yuna Horihata and Mark Rappaport filed the lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and driver Luis Gaytan Hernandez following a severe traffic collision. Horihata sustained life-altering injuries in the crash. The plaintiffs asserted that the accident resulted from the driver’s careless operation of his vehicle and a dangerous condition on public property which the City of Los Angeles had failed to fix or warn the public about. The defense for the City of Los Angeles and the driver had initially denied all claims of wrongdoing, arguing that the roadway was reasonably safe and that their actions had not caused the tragedy. Despite their vigorous defense, the defendants agreed to the substantial payment, resolving all claims and avoiding a lengthy, high-stakes trial. The $9.5 million figure reflected the devastating nature of Horihata’s injuries and the considerable cost of her necessary lifelong care. The final settlement closed the case, formally known as Horihata, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., in the Superior Court of California.

The lawsuit of Gary Gellner v. Eric W. Gill and the Town of Glastonbury centered on a snowplow collision that occurred on Bayberry Road in Glastonbury, Connecticut, on February 1, 2021. Plaintiff Gary Gellner alleged that Town employee Eric Gill, operating a heavy 2013 International snowplow, unsafely backed the vehicle down a snowy hill after failing to drive up it, striking Gellner while he was operating a snow blower in his driveway. Gellner sought damages for injuries to his neck, shoulders, arms, chest, and back, arguing the driver was negligent and careless. The defendants, represented by Michael R. Oleyer, Esq., denied all claims of negligence and raised the crucial Special Defense of Governmental Immunity, asserting protection from liability under Connecticut law for actions related to governmental operations. After the proceedings, which concluded on October 10, 2025, the jury returned a verdict entirely in favor of the defendants, rejecting all claims of negligence and resulting in no award of damages for the plaintiff.

The personal injury case Roger Daigle v. Ashley Monick, et al. (AAN-CV19-6033189-S) concluded on October 3, 2025, with a defense verdict. Plaintiff Roger Daigle filed suit in 2019 following a March 2017 rear-end collision on Howe Avenue in Shelton, Connecticut, claiming the defendant, Ashley Monick, negligently struck his stopped vehicle and caused severe, lasting injuries requiring extensive medical care. The trial centered on the disparity between the plaintiff's claimed serious injuries and the low-impact nature of the crash. While Mr. Daigle's experts affirmed the injuries were a direct result of the trauma, the defense experts challenged this causation, suggesting the ailments were pre-existing or exaggerated. After several years of litigation and weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Ashley Monick, and against the plaintiff, Roger Daigle. This finding confirmed that Mr. Daigle had not successfully proven his claim of negligence, concluding the six-year legal battle with no damages awarded.