Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

An 84-year-old California drag racing enthusiast won an $8 million punitive damages verdict against his longtime friend who allegedly exploited their decades-long relationship to fraudulently obtain a 30-acre property worth $8.5 million. Gary J. Reinero trusted Clifford J. Caton's real estate expertise when borrowing money against his Merced County property, but Caton allegedly disguised usurious interest rates as "loan origination fees," fabricated financial pressure through false claims about mortgage payments, and concealed crucial information about the property's development potential. After convincing the elderly Reinero to transfer the property title in 2014 under false pretenses, Caton sold the land for $8.5 million and kept all proceeds. The jury's substantial punitive award reflected the severity of exploiting an elder's trust through systematic deception spanning more than a decade.

A Miami-Dade County jury had issued a decisive verdict on April 22, 2025, after it had found Alexander Mosquera negligent for the collision that injured Raymond Del Valle. The lawsuit, filed against Mosquera and Tiger & Son Roofing Company, had centered on claims that the Defendant driver caused the crash and that the company bore vicarious liability as owner of the truck under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Jurors awarded $502,923.76 in total damages, including past and future medical expenses and significant non-economic damages for pain, disability, and impaired quality of life. The verdict had confirmed that Mr. Del Valle sustained permanent injuries and that Mosquera’s actions were the legal cause of his losses.

Loren Baker sued Terry Hillman Williams over a 2022 vehicle crash in Independence, Oregon, claiming the defendant’s speeding, poor lookout, and failure to yield caused the collision. Baker sought $10,000 in damages for medical costs, pain, and emotional distress. Williams denied negligence but admitted the accident occurred. After reviewing testimony and damage evidence, the jury found Williams liable but awarded Baker only $1,000—$763.45 in economic damages and $236.55 in non-economic damages. The verdict confirmed fault but delivered a minimal recovery compared to the claim.

This federal commercial dispute involved a breakdown in a specialized underwater cable repair project governed by the Subsea Cable Repair Agreement. Subsea Marine Services, Inc. claimed it fulfilled its repair obligations, while SMITCOMS failed to pay for the work performed. Subsea argued it mobilized specialized vessels, crew, and equipment, yet SMITCOMS withheld payment despite receiving the benefit. SMITCOMS countered that Subsea failed to perform according to contractual standards and raised several affirmative defenses, including nonperformance, estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands. After reviewing technical evidence and contract terms, the jury returned a unanimous verdict on November 3, 2025, finding that SMITCOMS breached the agreement. The jury awarded Subsea $286,250.00 in contract damages and $3,900.00 for unjust enrichment, rejecting every defense raised. The jury also found Subsea did not breach the contract, resulting in zero recovery on SMITCOMS’s counterclaim.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court finalized a $440,000 class action settlement in Nelson Miranda v. CA Glatt Mart, Inc. The lawsuit alleged that the supermarket operator systematically violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide proper minimum wage, overtime, accurate wage statements, and legally mandated meal and rest periods to hundreds of non-exempt, hourly-paid employees. The compromise concluded two years of litigation, providing financial relief to the class members for lost wages and statutory penalties.

Miami-Dade jury awards Bay Harbour Investment, Inc. $300,000 in damages after finding four defendants liable for fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation in a disputed waterfront property transaction. The May 2025 verdict held 9740 W Bay Harbor Dr, LLC, SINA, LLC, and individuals Samuel Sami and Elias Sabbagh responsible for concealing material defects about the property's condition and development potential. Judge Antonio Arzola's final judgment includes pre-judgment interest from October 2021, with the court reserving jurisdiction over attorney's fees and enforcement. The three-year litigation centered on alleged intentional misstatements regarding sea wall problems and permitting issues that caused the buyer significant remediation costs and development delays.

A Connecticut jury awarded $80,000 to Barbara Zup after determining that Dr. Beenish Orr and Smile Center deviated from the dental standard of care during a series of implant procedures performed in 2021. Zup suffered severe complications, including infections, implant perforations into her sinus and nasal cavity, and ultimately sepsis requiring hospitalization. Subsequent evaluations revealed improperly placed implants, exposed threads, ill-fitting prostheses, and infected surgical sites. The jury found the Defendants liable for negligent treatment planning, execution, and follow-up care, awarding $60,000 in economic damages and $20,000 in non-economic damages.

In A.R. (Minor) et al. vs. M.P. (Minor) et al., the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County examined three serious intentional tort claims—simple battery, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—brought by A.R. through her mother, Elida Villaroel, against fellow minor M.P. The lawsuit centered on allegations stemming from a December 2022 gathering at a Coral Gables High School friend’s apartment clubhouse. The Plaintiffs alleged non-consensual touching, penetration, and emotionally damaging conduct. They sought damages exceeding $30,000 and reserved the right to pursue punitive damages. The defense denied all allegations, arguing lack of intent, insufficient proof of outrageous conduct, and asserting affirmative defenses such as unclean hands. On May 30, 2025, the jury found in favor of the Defendant on all three counts. With no liability established, the jury did not reach the damages phase, resulting in a complete defense verdict and no monetary recovery for the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Carli Rodriguez filed this class action lawsuit following a cyberattack on City of Hope's systems between September 19, 2023, and October 12, 2023. The complaint alleged that the organization failed to secure the Personal Health Information (PHI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of approximately 800,000 individuals, including social security numbers and medical history. Rodriguez further claimed that City of Hope was negligent by waiting until April 2024—nearly six months after discovering the breach—to notify affected victims. The case, which involved claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, and privacy violations, was resolved with a settlement of $8,500,000.

In Bitech Technologies Corporation v. Michael Cao, a publicly traded green energy company filed suit alleging it was defrauded by consultants who promised a revolutionary power generation system called "Tesdison". Bitech claimed that after issuing millions of shares and paying substantial salaries to Michael Cao and his associates, the technology was revealed to be non-functional, relying on hidden batteries rather than the promised perpetual energy innovation. The complaint, which included allegations of fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, detailed how the Defendants allegedly siphoned corporate funds for personal use while failing to deliver a commercial product. The dispute was ultimately resolved with a reported settlement of $6.3 million.

This case involved a significant motor vehicle collision on June 1, 2020, in Sacramento County, where Plaintiff Ashley Diaz suffered injuries after her vehicle collided with a truck operated by Zachary Deangelis and owned by A Better Moving & Storage Co., Inc. . Diaz filed suit alleging that the company had been negligent in entrusting the vehicle to an unfit driver and failed to properly train or supervise him. While the Defendants initially denied all liability and asserted that Diaz was comparatively at fault, the parties ultimately resolved the dispute with a settlement of $8,718,418.

On December 11, 2025, a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas delivered a decisive victory for MyChoice, LLC and BarBoards, LLC in their patent infringement lawsuit against Taiv, Inc. The jury determined that Taiv had willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,708,658, a patent covering systems that automate the replacement of undesirable content, such as commercials, on television broadcasts in venues like bars and restaurants. While Taiv argued that the patent claims were invalid, the jury rejected this defense, upholding the patent's validity. Consequently, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $2 million in damages, specified as a lump sum royalty for the past unauthorized use of the technology.