Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

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.

In Darlus L. West v. Javon Bethel and Taron Bethel (Case No. 2021-008202-CA-01), a Miami-Dade jury ruled that neither Javon nor Taron Bethel were negligent in connection with an alleged fireworks-related injury that occurred on July 4, 2020. The plaintiff, Darlus L. West, claimed he was struck in the eye by a firework launched from the Bethels’ property during a neighborhood celebration and sought compensation for lasting injuries. After hearing evidence and witness testimony, jurors concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the firework originated from the Bethels’ residence or that they breached any duty of care. The verdict, delivered on November 22, 2024, resulted in no damages and a complete defense win.

In a victory for the Plaintiffs, an Eleventh Circuit jury in Miami-Dade County delivered a verdict on November 14, 2024, confirming Oscar and Shirley Manzanares’ equitable claim to a family property against Oscar Simeon Exposito and Carmen Cuellar. The case, which centered on a family agreement to jointly purchase a home, concluded with the jury assigning 50% ownership to the Plaintiffs and the remaining 50% to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs had argued that while the deed was only in the Defendants’ names due to credit concerns, they had significantly funded the mortgage and improvements under the promise of co-ownership. The jury agreed with the Plaintiffs, finding that the Defendants committed fraudulent inducement and were unjustly enriched by the Plaintiffs’ investments. Although the jury awarded only nominal damages of $1.00 for the monetary claims, the primary significance of the verdict was the judicial recognition and formal establishment of the Plaintiffs’ half-ownership interest in the property, effectively resolving the long-standing dispute.

A Jacksonville jury in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Duval County delivered a landmark verdict on November 21, 2024, awarding Plaintiff Lathen Jarrard Bromell over $1 million in damages after a motor vehicle accident. Bromell had sued Defendant John Latulippe for negligence following an April 2022 collision, claiming he sustained serious, permanent injuries. The key contention in the trial was whether Bromell’s injuries crossed the "permanent injury threshold" required by Florida law for non-economic damages. The defense had argued that any injuries were minor or pre-existing. However, the jury definitively answered "YES" to the question of permanency, paving the way for a major damages award. The total judgment for Bromell reached $1,080,648.55. This included $80,648.55 for past medical expenses and a substantial $500,000.00 for future medical care. Furthermore, the jury compensated the Plaintiff for his suffering, awarding $200,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and an additional $300,000.00 for future pain, suffering, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life. The verdict affirmed the severity of the Plaintiff’s lifelong physical burdens caused by the Defendant's negligence.

The lawsuit Damien Hendricks v. BGDS LLC concluded with a $350,000 settlement, resolving a class action filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on October 12, 2022. The Plaintiff, representing current and former hourly employees across California, alleged that BGDS LLC had systematically violated the California Labor Code. The core claims centered on the company's failure to provide mandatory, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks, and requiring employees to work off-the-clock, which resulted in unpaid overtime and lost premium pay. The Plaintiffs' argument focused on "functional denial," contending that operational pressure and understaffing made it practically impossible for workers to take legally compliant breaks. The defense firmly denied the claims, stating its written policies complied with the law, and that any missed breaks were due to employee choice or failure to use internal reporting procedures. Following the initial stages of litigation and discovery, which included analysis by Labor Economists and Statistical Sampling Analysts, the parties entered mediation. The settlement was reached to avoid the significant costs and risks of a trial, providing the class members with compensation for all claimed unpaid wages, statutory penalties (including waiting time penalties), and associated attorneys' fees.

The class action lawsuit, Valencia King, et al. v. Leisure Care, LLC, et al., culminated in a $2,400,000 settlement against the operators of Livermore Senior Living and other facilities. The complaint, filed in May 2021 in Alameda County Superior Court, alleged that Leisure Care, LLC and its related entities systematically violated the California Labor Code, primarily by failing to provide legally mandated, uninterrupted meal and rest periods, and by failing to accurately compensate employees for all hours worked, including overtime. Plaintiff Valencia King, representing hundreds of current and former employees, argued that operational demands in the senior living environment effectively forced workers to remain on duty during their breaks, resulting in a loss of premium pay. The lawsuit also sought damages for failure to issue proper wage statements and for unreimbursed business expenses. The defense, throughout the proceedings, maintained that it had compliant policies in place and that any violations were isolated, not systemic. However, after extensive discovery and the class being certified, the defendants chose to resolve the entire matter through a substantial settlement, avoiding the risk and cost of a jury trial. The resolution provides compensation to the class members for the alleged unpaid wages, penalties, and interest.

The United States of America brought a civil action against Korea Times Los Angeles, Inc. (KTLA) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking to enforce a long-standing debt for unpaid corporate federal income taxes from the 2011 tax year. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had initially assessed the outstanding tax and penalties, which the government claimed had grown to $7,961,701 by late 2023. The lawsuit, initiated in December 2023, aimed to reduce the mounting debt into a formal, enforceable court judgment. After filing their answer, which generally denied the specific amounts owed, KTLA and the government entered into extensive negotiations. This process culminated in a Stipulation, a formal agreement presented to Judge John A. Kronstadt. The judge formally entered a judgment in May 2025 stating the defendant owed a final amount of $9,112,918.66, which included all accumulated interest and penalties. However, the agreement stipulated that if KTLA completed payment of the negotiated $4,250,000 settlement amount, the entire $9.1 million judgment would be considered fully satisfied, concluding the complex tax dispute.

The landmark lawsuit, John Doe M.F. v. LAUSD, centered on serious allegations of childhood sexual abuse committed by a district employee, Doe #2. The plaintiff's legal team successfully framed the case as both direct misconduct by the individual and an institutional failure by the LAUSD, citing negligent hiring and supervision. Although the Los Angeles Unified School District formally denied all claims and asserted defenses—including arguments that the statute of limitations had expired—the nearly three-year legal battle concluded outside of court. The parties ultimately filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case in July 2025, resulting in a mutual, confidential agreement that successfully avoided a public jury verdict.