Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

The case of Davis v. Home 2 U 9, LLC, et al., filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, reached a $1,000,000 settlement, concluding the intense litigation over a residential care facility's failure to supervise a dangerous resident. The plaintiffs, Carlos Davis and his minor daughter, H.D. Doe, had sued the operator, HOME 2 U 9, LLC, for negligence and premises liability. The complaint charged that the defendant completely breached its duty when it allowed a registered sex offender, known to pose a significant risk, to leave the facility unsupervised while the overnight caregiver slept. That lack of supervision directly resulted in a devastating incident that caused H.D. Doe to suffer severe and lasting emotional distress, anxiety, and depression. The defendant consistently denied liability, arguing the resident's criminal acts were unforeseeable. However, after extensive legal proceedings and the exchange of strong expert testimony on facility protocol and child psychology, the parties agreed to the seven-figure settlement in August 2025, thus avoiding a highly publicized jury trial.

A high-stakes patent battle in the Eastern District of Texas ended with a sweeping victory for Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited. The dispute centered on allegations that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. incorporated Pictiva’s patented OLED display technology into their products without authorization. Pictiva filed suit in late 2023, accusing Samsung of direct and indirect infringement involving patents such as the ’547, ’223, ’164, and ’425 patents. Despite the efforts, the jury found that Samsung directly infringed several asserted patent claims and rejected Samsung’s invalidity arguments. The jury also concluded that the infringement was willful, exposing Samsung to potential enhanced damages. On November 3, 2025, the jury awarded Pictiva $191.4 million in reasonable royalty damages, structured as a one-time lump-sum payment covering Samsung’s unauthorized use of the OLED technology. The verdict established that Pictiva’s patents were valid, enforceable, and infringed, marking a significant win for the Plaintiffs in one of the year’s major patent cases.

A New Haven jury delivered a focused but decisive verdict for Plaintiff Eleanor Mikulski in her negligence lawsuit against driver Sunita Kelly and her employer, Columbus Chemists, LLC. The case stemmed from an April 12, 2022 rear-end collision on Ella T. Grasso Boulevard, where Kelly, driving a company vehicle, struck the back of Mikulski’s Honda. Mikulski described significant lower-back injuries, including disc disease and interfacet arthrosis at L5-S1, which caused lasting pain, limited mobility, and financial strain. She alleged that Kelly failed to maintain a proper lookout, drove too fast for conditions, and did not provide any warning before impact. Although the Defendants admitted the crash occurred and acknowledged Kelly’s employment status, they denied negligence and challenged the severity and origin of Mikulski’s injuries. After hearing testimony from the Plaintiff’s medical experts, the jury found both Kelly and her employer liable. On November 7, 2025, the jury awarded Mikulski $4,858 for past medical expenses but declined to grant non-economic damages. The verdict confirmed negligence while limiting compensation to documented economic losses.

The lawsuit brought by Kayla Vitela against Sizzling Platter, LLC and its Wingstop-affiliated entities centered on alleged statewide wage and hour violations affecting a large group of employees. Filed under the Private Attorneys General Act, the case claimed that workers were denied proper meal and rest breaks, given inaccurate wage statements, owed unpaid final wages, and left without reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The employer denied all allegations, but the risk of mounting penalties across numerous employees pushed the parties toward mediation. The action concluded with a $1.3 million settlement covering civil penalties, employee restitution, and substantial attorney fees, marking a significant outcome in favor of the aggrieved workers.

This employment lawsuit stemmed from Eric Jones’s request for workplace accommodations for a chronic skin condition and a prior shoulder injury while employed with the Los Angeles Unified School District. Jones argued that LAUSD ignored its legal duty to work with him through the interactive process and failed to provide reasonable accommodations, causing him financial and emotional harm. Although the jury rejected his retaliation claim, they concluded that the District’s failures under California’s FEHA laws directly caused damage. On July 2, 2025, the jury awarded Jones $300,000 in past and future lost earnings, confirming that LAUSD’s handling of his accommodation requests violated state disability protections.

This case arose after a dangerous 60-foot manual sliding gate collapsed on tenant Christopher Huynh behind his business in Stanton, California. The heavy gate pinned him to the ground, causing paralysis, spinal damage, and long-term disability. His wife, Christine Vu, later became his full-time caregiver. The couple alleged the property owners and managers ignored warnings about the unsafe gate, failed to maintain the premises, and instructed Huynh to close it each night. As trial approached, the parties reached a $10.8 million settlement reflecting the permanent injuries, profound loss of mobility, and the life-changing impact on the couple’s future.

A San Francisco woman reached a $128,000 settlement after tripping over exposed metal anchor bolts on a city sidewalk. Plaintiff Jane Gazzola alleged that the City and County of San Francisco and Wilad Properties, LLC failed to maintain the walkway in a safe condition, causing her serious injuries. The Defendants denied liability, arguing the sidewalk was not dangerous and that Gazzola contributed to her fall. The case, filed in 2023, ended in April 2025 when all parties notified the Court of a full settlement, avoiding the uncertainties of a jury trial.

Katrina Baptiste resolved her employment lawsuit against The City and County of San Francisco through a $125,000 settlement reached in June 2025. Baptiste had alleged severe workplace misconduct, including sexual and racial harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation for reporting the misconduct. She claimed the hostile conditions caused emotional distress, financial loss, and professional harm. The City denied all allegations, asserting it responded properly and violated no laws. The settlement brought an end to nearly two years of litigation and allowed both sides to avoid the risks and burdens of a public trial

A years-long wage and hour class action, Geierman v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. (20CV361771), concluded in Santa Clara County with a $945,391 settlement benefiting thousands of current and former workers. The lawsuit alleged that the delivery company and its HR partner failed to provide lawful meal and rest breaks, misrecorded work hours, and issued non-compliant wage statements. Jennifer Geierman, representing the class, argued that systemic timekeeping and scheduling practices denied employees wages and penalties owed under California labor laws. The Defendants denied wrongdoing, asserting that employees controlled their breaks and that policies complied with state requirements. After extensive discovery and mediation, the parties reached a global settlement that compensates workers and mandates key operational changes, including updated timekeeping systems and clearer break policies. The resolution closes a major employment dispute in California’s gig-economy labor landscape.

Alyonik Hrushow’s personal injury lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco ended in a $225,000 settlement in May 2025, months before the case was set for trial. Hrushow claimed she suffered severe injuries after encountering a dangerous condition on public property that the City allegedly failed to repair or properly warn about. Her complaint asserted negligence under California’s public-property laws, arguing that the City created or ignored a hazardous defect that posed a foreseeable risk. The City denied all allegations, insisting that Hrushow caused or contributed to her own injuries and asserting multiple Government Code immunities. As discovery progressed, both sides agreed to resolve the matter, allowing Hrushow to receive immediate compensation for medical expenses, pain, and suffering while the City avoided the risks and costs of a jury trial.

A three-year wrongful death lawsuit against the City of San Buenaventura ended in July 2025 with a $19 million settlement for the family of Peter F. White. The case centered on allegations that a dangerous condition on public land caused Mr. White’s fatal injuries. His widow and children claimed the City and its contractor, West Coast Arborists, ignored a known hazard and failed to keep the property safe. Both defendants denied responsibility and raised numerous defenses, including statutory immunities. As trial neared, the parties reached a confidential resolution that provided immediate compensation to the White family while avoiding the risks of a public jury verdict.

A $3.5 million settlement closed the negligence lawsuit between passenger Izumi Streller and the City of Santa Monica after a fall aboard a Big Blue Bus left her injured. The incident occurred when the bus driver, Rochelle McCovery, allegedly accelerated before Streller could secure herself, causing her to fall and strike her head. Streller’s attorneys argued that the city, as a public carrier, failed to meet its duty of providing the highest level of passenger safety. The City denied wrongdoing, claiming it maintained proper standards and that Streller contributed to her own fall. After two years of litigation, both parties reached an unconditional settlement on August 6, 2025, avoiding trial and providing financial compensation for Streller’s injuries and suffering.