Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

A group of employees had filed a class action against Southern California Permanente Medical Group and Kaiser Permanente International, accusing the organizations of violating California Labor Code §2802 by failing to reimburse mandatory business expenses. The Plaintiffs said they used personal phones, computers, vehicles, and home offices for work without proper repayment. These out-of-pocket costs created ongoing financial losses for hundreds of employees. The Defendants denied the allegations but moved into settlement discussions as the case progressed. On November 12, 2025, Judge Elaine Lu granted final approval of a $15,000,000 class action settlement. The agreement included attorney fees of $5,000,000, service awards of $5,000 for each named Plaintiff, and a $500,000 PAGA penalty divided between the LWDA and aggrieved employees. The settlement resolved all reimbursement claims and required distribution of funds to the affected class members.

Justin Van Tussenbrook sued Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA, Inc. and Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America after a 2016 Yamaha YXZ side-by-side vehicle rolled over in Utah, leaving him paralyzed from the chest down due to severe spinal cord damage. The lawsuit, filed in Orange County Superior Court, claimed the vehicle's Rollover Protective Structure (ROPS) had a design flaw that made it weak and caused it to crumple in the crash. Plaintiff's counsel argued Yamaha knew of the defect post-sale but negligently failed to issue a recall or retrofit. The defense blamed the crash on the driver's reckless driving (taking a sharp turn) and argued Van Tussenbrook knew the risks of off-road riding. The jury returned a special verdict on September 24, 2025, finding the Yamaha ROPS design substantially caused Van Tussenbrook's injuries and that the risks outweighed the benefits (design defect). They also found Yamaha negligent for failing to recall or retrofit after learning of the defect. Fault was apportioned 75% to Yamaha and 25% to the driver. The total damages awarded, prior to reduction for comparative fault, amounted to $26,333,476.67.

The Connecticut Rules Governing Expert Witness Disclosure and Testimony establish the procedures for identifying, qualifying, and presenting expert witnesses in both civil and criminal cases. These rules outline the required disclosures, timing, and documentation; set standards for expert qualifications; and regulate the admissibility, scope, and limitations of expert testimony to ensure fairness, reliability, and transparency in legal proceedings.

Plaintiff Nancy Gossett’s complex personal injury lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and Delek Enterprises, Inc. concluded with a significant private settlement of $1,155,000. The case stemmed from a trip-and-fall incident on August 9, 2021, caused by an alleged dangerous condition—uneven pavement—on a public sidewalk on South Bundy Drive. Ms. Gossett had sought extensive damages for catastrophic injuries, which her counsel argued resulted from the defendants’ negligent failure to inspect and maintain the public infrastructure. Rather than facing a jury trial, scheduled for May 2023, the parties finalized the resolution on January 29, 2024, ending the contested legal proceedings.

A high-impact civil rights lawsuit brought on behalf of an eleven-year-old student with disabilities concluded with a significant settlement after two years of litigation. The case alleged that the Moreno Valley Unified School District failed to provide required disability accommodations, triggering a crisis that led to law enforcement intervention and the physical restraint of the child by a school resource officer. Court filings claimed emotional trauma, educational regression, and violations of ADA Title II, Section 504, and the Fourth Amendment. The settlement resolved all claims and confirmed over $5.3 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, alongside policy reforms addressing how schools and law enforcement handle students with disabilities.

The class action lawsuit, In re Sutter Health ERISA Litig. (Case No. 1:20-cv-01007), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of participants in the Sutter Health 403(b) Savings Plan. The plaintiffs alleged that Sutter Health and its fiduciaries breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to leverage the Plan's size to obtain lower-cost investment options and by permitting the Plan to incur excessive recordkeeping and investment management fees. This mismanagement allegedly resulted in significant financial injury to approximately 73,000 current and former employee participants. The parties reached a negotiated agreement, and the court granted preliminary approval for a $4.3 million common fund settlement to resolve all claims of fiduciary breach.

A Miami-Dade County jury issued a $30,077.87 award to homeowner Yiliana Pena after finding that Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company breached its contract by failing to pay her valid property-damage claim. The jury rejected the insurer’s defenses, ruling that Pena complied with all post-loss requirements, including document requests, inspection access, and the Sworn Proof of Loss. The verdict confirmed that Universal failed to meet its burden and was responsible for compensating Pena for the full covered loss to her Cutler Bay home.

In the Florida case Jose Hernandez vs. PSAN PI/WD Trust (Case No. 2022-023625-CA-01), the Plaintiff alleged life-changing injuries after a defective Takata airbag inflator in his 2005 Honda Civic violently ruptured during a minor collision on December 13, 2020. The inflator exploded with excessive force, sending metal fragments into the vehicle cabin, including a large, sharp metal piece that pierced Mr. Hernandez’s right arm, causing permanent disability, disfigurement, and chronic pain. Mr. Hernandez filed suit in December 2022 against both the Takata compensation trust and the Miami-based Honda dealership involved with the vehicle. He sought damages for medical bills, lost earning ability, and significant non-economic losses such as lifelong pain, disability, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. After hearing extensive testimony and reviewing expert evidence regarding the defect and the severity of the injuries, the jury returned a verdict on May 1, 2025, siding with the Plaintiff. The jury awarded a total of $3,000,000 in non-economic damages, allocating $2,500,000 for past suffering and $500,000 for future suffering, recognizing the irreversible impact of the airbag failure on the Plaintiff’s daily life and physical abilities. The verdict reflects the ongoing legal fallout from one of the largest defective safety product scandals in automotive history and underscores accountability for manufacturers and distributors when safety mechanisms fail catastrophically.

In the Miami-Dade Circuit Court case Serafettin Akkoc vs. Asuman Erguc et al, the dispute arose from a failed agreement to purchase the Golden Greek Souvlaki restaurant for $140,000. Plaintiff Serafettin Akkoc paid $91,000 toward the deal, but the Defendants—Asuman and Alper Erguc and Atlas Foods, LLC—refused to transfer ownership or the lease as agreed. The case centered on breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and allegations of fraud. The Ergucs denied wrongdoing and counterclaimed, arguing the buyers could not be trusted and alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. After nearly five years of litigation, a jury reached a decisive verdict on May 29, 2025. The jury found that Asuman Erguc breached the contract and awarded Akkoc $105,000 in damages. All counterclaims brought by the Defendants were dismissed. On June 3, 2025, Judge Beatrice Butchko Sanchez entered the final judgment. With statutory pre-judgment interest calculated at $35,857.50 from January 17, 2020, the total award reached $140,857.50, holding the Defendants jointly and severally liable. This ruling closes a prolonged legal battle over a broken business transaction and affirms the enforceability of written agreements in commercial sales.

The lawsuit Ramirez v. Bennett (2020-CA-007627-O) stemmed from an August 17, 2019 motor-vehicle collision in Orange County, Florida. Plaintiff Maria Ramirez alleged Defendant Jonathon Bennett negligently caused the crash and sought compensation for permanent injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Bennett denied all allegations and argued comparative negligence, improper medical treatment, and collateral source reductions. The case centered heavily on whether the accident caused permanent injury under Florida law — a requirement for awarding non-economic damages. After years of litigation, extensive expert testimony, and contested medical evidence, the jury returned a full defense verdict on May 20, 2025. The jury concluded that Bennett’s actions were not a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Ramirez, eliminating the need for further findings on permanency or damages. As a result, no monetary award was issued, and Bennett prevailed completely.

In Hajrudin Mesic v. Mildre Pernia et al., a Duval County jury issued a substantial verdict following a 2022 motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff Hajrudin Mesic alleged that Defendant Mildre Roxana Florez Pernia negligently caused the crash, resulting in permanent and significant injuries. Mesic also pursued a claim against Auto-Owners Insurance Company for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The jury found that Mesic suffered a permanent injury as a direct result of the collision. Based on the evidence and expert testimony presented, jurors awarded a total of $469,324, including $82,825 in past medical expenses, $287,616.50 in future medical care, $36,500 in past non-economic damages, and $62,383.50 in future non-economic losses. The defense arguments—challenging causation, arguing comparative negligence, and seeking offsets—were rejected. The verdict, signed May 9, 2025, represents a full win for the plaintiff and confirms entitlement to compensation for both economic loss and future anticipated medical treatment and suffering.

A Miami-Dade County jury delivered a decisive verdict in Nadir Elamri et al. v. Felix Diaz, resolving a contentious partnership dispute involving Motoro Cars I, LLC and Motoro Cars II, LLC. The Plaintiffs former business partners alleged that Defendant Felix Diaz engaged in self-dealing, breached fiduciary obligations, and destabilized the company’s operations. After reviewing testimony and evidence, the jury found Diaz responsible for wrongful conduct and persistent violations of his duties of loyalty and care. The verdict ordered the judicial expulsion of Diaz from both companies an extraordinary legal remedy rarely awarded in business litigation. The jury also awarded $7,150 in damages to Plaintiffs Nadir Elamri and Cristopher Suarez for unjust enrichment. The decision completely rejected Diaz’s counterclaims and affirmed that the Plaintiffs acted within the bounds of their legal rights. The ruling marks a significant outcome in corporate governance and partnership litigation disputes involving limited liability companies in Florida.