Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

LL John Doe MB sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for childhood sexual assault by an employee and negligent supervision. The Plaintiff alleged severe, lasting emotional and physical injuries. The School District denied all allegations, citing governmental immunity. The matter was resolved before trial, with the Defendant agreeing to a settlement of $675,000.

The lawsuit, Stephen Hernandez and Kristen Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No. 20STCV18272), arose from the fatal bicycle crash of Don Hernandez on April 27, 2019. The plaintiffs Mr. Hernandez’s heirs sued the County of Los Angeles, the State of California (CalTrans), and local cities, alleging that a dangerous condition of public property led to his death. The core of the complaint asserted that Don Hernandez struck a parking block that had been dangerously placed in or near a path intended for bicyclists. The plaintiffs argued that the governmental entities knew of the hazard but failed in their statutory duty to fix the defect or provide adequate warnings. The defendants denied liability, arguing they lacked formal notice of the condition and that the accident was caused by the decedent's own actions. The matter was ultimately resolved before trial through a comprehensive, binding settlement. The collective defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of $1,250,000 to resolve all claims, thus providing compensation for economic and non-economic damages without an admission of fault from the governmental entities.

The lawsuit, Valerie Busch v. County of Los Angeles (Case No. 21STCV27869), began in July 2021 when former County employee Valerie Busch asserted that the County had violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Plaintiff, who had a physical disability, claimed the County failed to engage in the legally mandated good-faith interactive process and refused to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to her eventual termination. Ms. Busch sought substantial damages for lost wages and significant emotional distress. The County denied liability, arguing its HR processes were compliant and that the Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation were unreasonable. Just prior to trial, after intense mediation, the parties reached a final, binding settlement. The County of Los Angeles agreed to pay Valerie Busch $175,000 to resolve all claims, formally closing the litigation.

The civil lawsuit, Jane Doe 7073 v. Charter Oak Unified School District, et al. (Case No. 22PSCV01794), arose from a former student's claim that a school employee, identified as Max Young, committed repeated sexual misconduct while she attended school. The plaintiff asserted that the Charter Oak Unified School District (COUSD) was negligent, having breached its duty to provide a safe environment by failing to properly supervise and intervene regarding the employee's behavior. The plaintiff sought extensive damages for severe emotional distress and psychological trauma. The District denied institutional negligence, arguing the employee’s actions were isolated and outside the scope of employment. After intensive legal proceedings and expert testimony, the litigation concluded before trial. The parties reached a final, binding settlement where the Charter Oak Unified School District agreed to pay the plaintiff a total of $2,000,000 to resolve all claims. This settlement did not include an admission of liability from the District but brought closure to the highly scrutinized case.

A Los Angeles jury sided entirely with former Director Christian Tetrault against financial giant Capital Group, finding the company liable on all five claims, including whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, and breach of contract. The verdict awarded Tetrault $843,391.91 for lost compensation and $50,000 for emotional distress, totaling over $893,000. Crucially, the jury also determined that the company’s conduct warranted punitive damages, setting the stage for the next phase of the trial. This landmark decision reinforces California’s strong protections for employees who report unlawful activity.

The personal injury lawsuit, Ines Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, concluded after nearly two years of litigation when the parties finalized an out-of-court settlement for $175,000. Chavez had claimed the City and its employees acted negligently, causing her significant physical and financial injuries. The City of Los Angeles had initially denied all claims and raised several affirmative defenses, including comparative negligence. The agreement successfully avoided a public jury trial, leading to the case's formal dismissal with prejudice in early 2025.

The personal injury lawsuit of Jada Navaeh Williams vs. City and County of San Francisco, Off. Simpson, et al. (Case No. CGC-24-614172) concluded with a pre-trial settlement of $80,000. The plaintiff alleged that two police officers negligently operated a vehicle by running a red light without activating emergency siren and lights, violating the California Vehicle Code. The incident caused Ms. Williams personal injuries and property damage. While the City and County of San Francisco denied all claims, asserting no negligence, they finalized the settlement on April 15, 2025, thereby resolving the dispute and avoiding a full jury trial on the issue of government employee conduct.

A Los Angeles court finalized a class action settlement, closing a retail dispute that had begun when plaintiff Jennifer Goodwin filed a complaint against Whole Foods Market, Inc., and its subsidiary, Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc. The lawsuit centered on whether the supermarket chain engaged in deceptive pricing practices, specifically regarding products advertised with "sale" or "discount" signs. The core of the legal action focused on California's robust consumer protection laws, asserting violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the False Advertising Law (FAL). The plaintiff claimed economic injury, arguing that shoppers incurred financial harm because they paid money for items under the mistaken belief that the advertised price reflected a genuine reduction from a standard, established price. The parties bypassed a trial and reached a negotiated resolution, which the court approved. The final settlement terms established a total fund of $650,000. The resolution included non-monetary, injunctive relief, which legally required Whole Foods to implement or maintain changes to its pricing and advertising policies, ensuring greater clarity and adherence to the law in its future sale promotions.

The litigation, Rosanna Weber and Randy Weber v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, was a breach of contract action filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County. The homeowners claimed that their property sustained damage from a windstorm that occurred around November 8, 2020, and that their insurer, Citizens, had failed to pay the full, covered cost of the resulting loss. Citizens denied the claim, asserting the damage was caused by non-covered issues such as wear, tear, and deterioration, not a sudden event. The key conflict in the trial became the cause and extent of the damage, with both sides presenting competing expert testimonies. After deliberation, the jury rejected the insurer's defense. The jury first confirmed that the Plaintiffs had proven the damage was indeed caused by a windstorm. Subsequently, on November 6, 2024, the jury returned a verdict setting the total amount of covered damages owed by the insurer to the homeowners at $50,000.00. This finding compelled Citizens to pay the full amount plus any associated interest and the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The City of Miami brought a Petition in Eminent Domain against South River Warehouse, LLC, to acquire a property designated as Parcel No. 101. Filed in December 2021, the case concerned the City’s constitutional right to take private land for public use, provided it paid "Full Compensation." The legal battle was not about the City's right to take the land, which the court had already confirmed, but about the property's fair market value. Throughout the trial, the City's legal team presented evidence supporting a lower valuation, while counsel for the property owner argued that the land's unique location on the Miami River made it significantly more valuable. After hearing the competing testimonies of real estate experts, the Miami-Dade jury ultimately sided with the property owner. On December 13, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding that the Full Compensation due for the acquired property was $10,780,000.00. This amount was substantially higher than the City's initial valuation and concluded the high-stakes property dispute.

The case of Clotaire Borgella v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (UPCIC) was a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County stemming from the insurer's denial of a property damage claim. The homeowner, Mr. Borgella, claimed his property sustained a direct physical loss during the policy period of November 2019 to November 2020. UPCIC denied the claim, asserting multiple Affirmative Defenses, primarily arguing that the damage was due to excluded causes like faulty workmanship or pre-existing conditions, and that Mr. Borgella failed to comply with his "Duties After Loss." The trial focused on expert testimony about the cause of the loss. The jury ultimately found that a direct physical loss had occurred. Although the jury agreed with the insurer that Mr. Borgella failed to substantially comply with the duty to show the cause of loss, they proceeded to assess damages. On November 7, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The employment dispute Rina Beltran v. California Coast Credit Union began as a proposed class action in the Superior Court of California, San Diego, alleging systematic violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Rina Beltran, on behalf of a class of current and former hourly employees, claimed the financial institution failed to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks, resulting in significant statutory penalties. The lawsuit further alleged that the credit union failed to properly track and compensate for all hours worked, leading to unpaid overtime and inaccurate wage statements. The defendant, California Coast Credit Union, denied all claims and asserted that it had acted in good faith. Rather than proceed to a risky, protracted trial, the parties reached a final, binding settlement. California Coast Credit Union agreed to pay $950,000 to resolve all wage and hour claims for the class members, bringing the litigation to a conclusion without a finding of fault.