Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

A Broward County jury delivered a powerful verdict against Johnson & Johnson, finding its talc-based powders caused the fatal cancer of Dr. Alberto A. Casaretto Sr., a respected Fort Lauderdale nephrologist. The jury awarded $20 million in compensatory damages to his estate, holding the company accountable for asbestos contamination in its consumer products. The Casaretto family’s legal team argued that Johnson & Johnson concealed the dangers of asbestos in its talc for decades, prioritizing profits over safety. The verdict stands as a landmark in Florida’s ongoing talc litigation, reinforcing corporate accountability for hidden product risks.

The family of a deceased Los Angeles man reached a $250,000 settlement with the City of Los Angeles Fire Department over claims of negligent emergency medical care. The wrongful death lawsuit accused two LAFD EMTs of failing to provide the standard of care required under California law, leading to the patient’s death. Filed in 2021, the case alleged professional negligence and loss of companionship. Before trial, the City approved the settlement to resolve all claims without admitting liability. The agreement brought closure to a grieving family’s pursuit of accountability while protecting the City from prolonged litigation.

In a Broward County courtroom, a routine slip-and-fall case turned into a lesson in shared responsibility. Algene Edwards sued Westgate Plaza, Inc. for negligence after tripping on a damaged sidewalk in Fort Lauderdale. Edwards alleged the property owner ignored a known hazard, while Westgate argued the danger was obvious and avoidable. The jury agreed both sides shared blame—assigning 75% fault to Edwards and 25% to Westgate Plaza. Though total damages reached $741,276.57, Edwards’s recovery was sharply reduced under Florida’s comparative negligence rule. The verdict underscored the delicate balance between property maintenance and personal caution.

In a landmark corruption and civil rights case, DJCBP Corporation and its principal, David Ju, prevailed against the City of Baldwin Park after a years-long battle over alleged municipal corruption and retaliation. The Plaintiffs accused city officials of engaging in bribery and extortion schemes tied to development projects. When DJCBP refused to participate, they claimed the City retaliated by withholding payments and terminating contracts. A federal jury found the City liable for fraud and negligent supervision, awarding $1.89 million in damages. The verdict underscores accountability in municipal governance and reaffirms protections for those who challenge public corruption.

A major California labor class action ended with a $1.89 million settlement between MD Hydration Inc. and former employee Yolanda Soto. Soto, representing a class of workers, alleged systemic violations of state labor laws — including unpaid wages, missed meal breaks, and inaccurate pay statements. The company faced additional penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for widespread labor code breaches. The Superior Court of Los Angeles approved the settlement, which compensates affected employees and covers attorneys’ fees and civil penalties, closing a significant case in California’s ongoing wage enforcement efforts.

The class action Vijay Sheth vs. Icon Burger Acquisition LLC concluded with a $989,940 settlement after thousands of Smashburger employees alleged widespread violations of California labor laws. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the case accused the company of denying meal and rest breaks, underpaying wages, and issuing inaccurate pay statements. While the company denied wrongdoing, it agreed to the settlement to avoid further litigation. The fund compensates affected employees, pays PAGA penalties, and covers attorney fees—ending a multi-year wage and hour dispute across California Smashburger locations.

On February 16, 2022, Sherrell Whitfield initiated a premises liability lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Housing Authority. The plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition on public property, which the municipal defendants controlled and had knowledge of, caused her to sustain significant personal injuries and property damage. The case was filed under Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction, indicating a high financial claim. The City, represented by the City Attorney’s Office, denied all negligence claims, often relying on California’s statutory governmental immunities in its defense. Facing the complexity and expense of a full trial, which would have involved detailed expert testimony, both parties chose to resolve the dispute. On March 12, 2025, the case concluded when the defendants agreed to a settlement, paying Sherrell Whitfield the sum of $100,000 to finalize all claims.

The representative action, Rosario Zavala v. Post Acute Care Partners Inc., et al., filed in November 2023, asserted that the healthcare company violated numerous California Labor Code sections, including failures related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and providing compliant meal and rest periods. The lawsuit, brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), sought civil penalties on behalf of the state and the aggrieved employees. The case concluded with a court-approved PAGA Settlement on July 30, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. Post Acute Care Partners Inc. paid a $100,000 Gross Settlement Amount to resolve the civil penalty claims, with 75% of the fund allocated to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

The class action lawsuit, Pary Al Zahawi, et al. v. The Kind Center, Inc., et al., targeted multiple cannabis industry employers for systemic violations of California wage and hour laws. Filed in December 2022, the complaint asserted that hundreds of current and former employees had been denied proper minimum wage, overtime pay, and mandated rest and meal periods. The defendants also faced claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for issuing inaccurate wage statements. The case concluded with a Final Order and Judgment Approving Class Settlement on July 14, 2025, which established a $2,800,000 Gross Settlement Fund to compensate the class members for their alleged labor law violations.

The Tramil v. City and County of San Francisco lawsuit began in 2019 after former employee Mary Tramil alleged the City violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The complaint asserted that the City had failed to engage in a mandatory interactive process and refused to provide reasonable accommodations for her physical disability, ultimately leading to her wrongful discharge. Tramil sought lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress. The CCSF denied all liability, citing various immunities and arguing that its actions were reasonable and non-discriminatory. After years of litigation, the parties reached a negotiated settlement, concluding the case for $230,000.

The lawsuit, Catton v. City of San Diego, began in September 2023 when property owner David Catton sued the City for inverse condemnation, alleging that governmental action or inaction had deprived his property of all economic value. Mr. Catton sought damages for the full loss of property value, use, and income, along with attorney and expert fees. The City of San Diego vehemently denied liability, citing governmental immunity, the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff's failure to mitigate. After a year and a half of litigation, the parties negotiated a conditional settlement, which was officially filed with the court on May 14, 2025. This resolution settled the complex property rights dispute in its entirety, with the City agreeing to compensate the property owner with $420,000.

In a landmark patent infringement case, Optis Wireless Technology and its affiliates won a $300 million jury verdict against Apple Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The dispute centered on Apple’s use of LTE-standard technology in its devices without paying FRAND-compliant royalties. Optis claimed Apple’s infringement was willful, depriving them of rightful licensing revenue. Apple countered with defenses of non-infringement and invalid patents. After extensive testimony, the jury awarded Optis a $300 million lump-sum FRAND royalty. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld parts of the verdict, reversed others, and remanded certain issues for further proceedings, keeping the case active and its final outcome pending.