Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

In Bradley Andersohn et al. v. Leroy Cross et al., a Santa Cruz County jury issued a detailed verdict following a collision between an electric bicycle and a construction trailer on November 29, 2021. Plaintiff Bradley Andersohn was riding in a marked bike lane when a trailer towed by Defendant Leroy Cross crossed into the lane, struck the bicycle, and caused severe injuries. The Plaintiffs alleged motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and loss of consortium, also seeking to hold trailer owner Michael Price and Price Construction liable through agency and permissive-use theories. The jury found Cross negligent and determined that Michael Price, as the trailer’s owner, had granted permissive use, creating liability for Price and his company. However, the jury also concluded that Andersohn was 95% responsible for the accident. Total damages were calculated at $593,500 for Bradley Andersohn and $25,000 for Debra Andersohn, but the overwhelming comparative-fault apportionment sharply limited the Plaintiffs' actual recovery. The February 21, 2025 verdict closed a complex dispute over liability, agency, permissive use, and responsibility within bike-lane traffic incidents.

In Marquita Smith v. FEG Sawgrass, LLC, a Broward County jury found the operator of a Johnny Rockets restaurant negligent for a December 15, 2019 slip-and-fall incident. Smith claimed she fell on a slippery floor inside the Sunrise, Florida restaurant due to unsafe conditions the Defendant failed to address. After trial, the jury assigned 80% liability to FEG Sawgrass and 20% comparative fault to Smith. They awarded $584,589.44 in damages for medical costs and pain and suffering, subject to reduction for Smith’s percentage of fault. The February 24, 2025 verdict concluded a multi-year dispute over premises safety, causation, and damages.

A Miami-Dade County jury sided with contractor Mige Group, LLC, in a heated Coral Gables remodeling dispute against homeowners Waeil Hmidi and Margot Huber. The homeowners had accused the contractor of delays and substandard work, while Mige Group countered that the owners halted payments prematurely, breaching the contract first. After a two-week trial, the jury rejected all claims by the homeowners and found they had materially breached the agreement. The decision concluded a tense construction dispute that underscored the importance of payment compliance in residential contracts.

A class action lawsuit against Pactrack, Inc., a California logistics company, ended in a $160,000 settlement in September 2024. Plaintiff Carmen Bustamante filed the case alleging that Pactrack failed to pay hourly workers for all hours worked, including overtime, and neglected to reimburse them for job-related expenses. The complaint also cited inaccurate pay stubs and violations of California labor laws. The Los Angeles Superior Court approved the settlement, providing financial relief to affected employees and resolving the wage and hour claims without trial.

A wage and hour class action against Metro Eighteen, Inc. ended with a $495,000 settlement approved by the Los Angeles Superior Court in September 2024. Plaintiff David Cancino alleged that the retail operator’s time-rounding system consistently favored the employer, causing employees to lose pay for minutes worked. The lawsuit accused the company of failing to issue accurate wage statements and engaging in unfair business practices. Metro Eighteen denied all wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to resolve the claims and avoid a lengthy trial.

In a major California labor dispute, furniture retailer La-Z-Boy and its subsidiary LZB Retail, Inc. reached a $1.07 million class action settlement with former and current hourly employees. The lawsuit, led by Plaintiff Dustin Evers and filed in the San Diego Superior Court, accused the company of failing to pay workers for all hours worked and not providing required meal and rest breaks. The settlement, approved in September 2024, provided compensation to hundreds of employees for unpaid wages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees, closing a two-year battle over alleged wage and hour violations.

In a major employment class action, two former employees, Mario Arredondo Jr. and Miguel Rivera, sued Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations Inc. for systematic wage and hour violations. The lawsuit, filed in the San Diego Superior Court, claimed that the international security firm failed to pay hourly staff correctly, denied proper breaks, and issued inaccurate pay stubs. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a $1.35 million settlement in February 2025. The agreement, approved by Judge Gregory W. Pollack, provided compensation to approximately 85 employees for unpaid wages and penalties, concluding a significant California labor law dispute.

In a notable California class action, Robert Estrada led a lawsuit against TRC Companies, Inc., and TRC Companies, LLC, claiming widespread violations of state labor laws. The suit accused the national engineering firm of underpaying hourly employees, denying proper meal and rest breaks, and issuing inaccurate pay stubs. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the case culminated in a $2.2 million settlement approved by the court. The resolution provided direct relief to hundreds of affected employees and marked a significant labor compliance reckoning for TRC Companies.

A Los Angeles County jury awarded $1,183,163.44 to plaintiff Vincent Carlos Hamlin after finding 562 Express Inc. and its driver, Andrew Eleazar Menendez, negligent in a commercial truck collision. Hamlin’s lawsuit, filed in September 2024, alleged that Menendez operated the company vehicle carelessly, violating California traffic laws. The jury found the Defendants 100% responsible for the crash and rejected claims of comparative fault. The damages covered past and future medical costs, lost wages, and long-term pain and suffering. Judge Michael P. Vicencia entered final judgment on October 23, 2025, affirming the verdict and ordering the Defendants to pay the full amount plus interest and costs.

In a high-profile federal case, music producer Leland T. Wayne, known as Metro Boomin, prevailed against civil sexual battery allegations filed by Vanessa LeMaistre. The case, heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, centered on claims that Wayne acted inappropriately during a professional meeting. LeMaistre sought economic, non-economic, and punitive damages for alleged emotional distress and reputational harm. After a multi-day trial before Judge R. Gary Klausner, the jury found no liability on all counts, concluding that the Plaintiff’s evidence did not meet the standard required for civil sexual battery. Judgment was entered on October 24, 2025, declaring Wayne the prevailing party entitled to recover court costs.

The County of Riverside and Riverside University Health System-Medical Center agreed to pay $2,250,000 to settle a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Lovell Avery. The case, filed in July 2023, alleged that negligent medical treatment and breaches in professional care standards caused Avery’s lasting physical and emotional injuries. The complaint named the County and several physicians as defendants. Both sides engaged in discovery before reaching an out-of-court settlement that avoided a jury trial. The agreement brought closure to a complex dispute over the standard of care in a county-run hospital.

The City of San Diego reached a $4,000,000 settlement to resolve a personal injury lawsuit filed by resident Michael Fox. Filed in March 2023 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, the case alleged that the city’s negligence in maintaining public property caused severe and lasting injuries. Fox’s complaint centered on a dangerous condition of public property, claiming that the city knew or should have known about the hazard but failed to take action. His attorneys argued that this inaction violated California’s Government Code duties for public safety. The city denied all allegations and asserted governmental immunity, maintaining that no such dangerous condition existed and that other factors may have caused the injury. Before the case reached trial, both sides agreed to settle. The $4 million settlement closed the dispute, marking another high-value resolution involving municipal liability in California.