Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Chevron USA, Inc. engaged in disability discrimination and wrongful constructive discharge against former employee Mark Snookal. The case arose after Chevron withdrew a lucrative overseas promotion—Reliability Engineering Manager in Nigeria—from Snookal, citing his stable, pre-existing heart condition (a dilated aortic root) as a medical disqualifier for the remote assignment. The jury found that Snookal was fully capable of performing the job's essential duties, and his perceived disability was a substantial motivating factor in the company’s decision. The jury also rejected Chevron’s defense that the condition posed a "direct threat" to Snookal's safety in the remote environment. The verdict included $4 million in compensatory damages.

The case of Michelle Champeau v. City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and State of California stemmed from a serious sidewalk fall near 7th Street and New Hampshire Avenue in Los Angeles. Champeau claimed that poorly maintained public property caused her accident and subsequent injuries. After months of legal proceedings, the City of Los Angeles and related Defendants agreed to pay a $365,000 settlement, resolving the personal injury and premises liability claims. The outcome underscored the City’s duty to maintain safe walkways and demonstrated how public entities can be held accountable when negligence contributes to citizen injuries.

The legal battle of Arroyo v. Tijuanazo Inc., El Tijuanazo Corp, et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, stemmed from systemic allegations of labor law violations against a multi-entity restaurant group. Named plaintiff Jose Ivan Arroyo initiated the matter as a class and representative action, asserting the defendants had routinely denied employees legally mandated rest and meal periods, failed to pay full wages and overtime, and provided inaccurate wage statements. The workers claimed immediate financial injury from the unpaid labor and personal harm from the denial of basic workplace protections. The lawsuit sought to recover all back wages, premium pay for missed breaks, and statutory penalties for the class. Instead of facing a jury trial, which carried significant risk and cost for both sides, the parties engaged in focused negotiations following discovery and expert testimony. The proceeding concluded in a private settlement, with the defendant entities agreeing to pay a total of $250,000 to resolve all claims from the class members and cover the plaintiffs' associated legal fees and costs, thereby finalizing the wage and hour dispute.

The lawsuit Alexander Kaller v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company concerned a policyholder's claim for water damage to his condominium unit. The plaintiff alleged the damage stemmed from an accidental discharge of water on or about October 18, 2020, an event he asserted the policy covered. The insurer, UPCIC, denied the claim, arguing the damage resulted from excluded causes like wear and tear or improper maintenance. After a trial focused on expert testimony, the Miami-Dade jury had to first determine if the property suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period. The jury answered this pivotal question with an emphatic "No," immediately halting the proceedings and foreclosing any further discussion of damages or policy exclusions. On November 7, 2024, the jury returned a verdict firmly in favor of the Defendant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. This ruling ended the case, confirming that Mr. Kaller had failed to prove a covered loss under the terms of his policy.

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.