Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

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.

In Dwight William Dudley v. Abel Arteaga De Leon and ARTLUX Builders Corp, a Los Angeles County jury determined that the defendants’ negligence played a substantial role in causing Dudley’s injuries from a 2022 collision on Lomita Boulevard. The verdict, delivered on September 11, 2025, awarded $162,250 in total damages — including $2,250 for future medical expenses and $160,000 for past pain and suffering. The case centered on whether De Leon, operating a company vehicle for ARTLUX Builders, failed to drive responsibly and thereby caused the crash. Dudley, represented by Kirtland & Packard LLP, claimed the impact left him with lasting physical and emotional harm that disrupted his work and daily life. The defense, led by Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Walshok LLP, denied liability, arguing that other factors could have caused the accident and that Dudley’s claimed injuries were overstated. After reviewing the evidence and testimony, jurors sided with the plaintiff, concluding that De Leon’s negligent driving directly caused Dudley’s losses. This verdict highlights how California juries weigh negligence, causation, and damages in auto injury cases involving employer liability.

The labor action of Julian Santana vs. Lion Raisins, Inc. concluded with a final settlement agreement totaling $800,000. The suit was filed under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), authorizing Santana to pursue penalties on behalf of numerous aggrieved employees. The core claims alleged that Lion Raisins systematically failed to comply with multiple California Labor Code statutes, specifically regarding proper provision and payment for meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and timely payment of all earned wages, including final paychecks. Lion Raisins denied all allegations but ultimately agreed to the settlement amount to fully resolve the contentious, months-long litigation, thereby closing the book on claims related to alleged financial injury and systemic record-keeping issues.

The case is based on a severe data breach that occurred in September 2023, during which an unauthorized party accessed highly sensitive personal information, including clients’ Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and medical records. Plaintiffs alleged that Keenan failed to uphold its fundamental duty of care and acted with negligence in protecting this private data. The agreed-upon $14,000,000 Settlement Fund has been established to compensate the class, which includes cash payments, reimbursement of documented losses up to $10,000 per class member, and the provision of three years of Credit Monitoring and Insurance Services (CMIS). Crucially, while the Settlement Agreement has been electronically filed with the Court (on 12/26/2024) , it is subject to Court approval. All litigation proceedings are currently stayed pending the Final Fairness Hearing and the Court's entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment. The case is therefore technically still open until the Effective Date of the Settlement occurs.

After 25 years of service, Senior Assistant District Attorney Tracy Miller filed a landmark lawsuit against the County of Orange, District Attorney Todd Spitzer, and Chief Assistant DA Shawn Nelson. Miller alleged the two top officials intentionally created a hostile work environment and subjected her to retaliation after she defended junior female colleagues who had reported sexual harassment by a close associate of Spitzer. Miller claimed this systematic campaign of humiliation and marginalization forced her into early retirement—a constructive termination. The San Diego jury ultimately sided with Miller, holding the defendants liable and awarding a total verdict of $3.025 million, including $25,000 in punitive damages personally paid by Todd Spitzer.

A landmark Qui Tam lawsuit, United States of America, ex rel Paul Pew v. Seoul Medical Group, Inc., et al., has concluded with a massive $62 million settlement on March 26. The action, filed in the Central District of California, alleged that Seoul Medical Group (SMG) and its subsidiary Advanced Medical Management (AMM) submitted false diagnosis codes to fraudulently inflate payments from the Medicare Advantage program. The total settlement was paid by four entities: SMG and AMM (over $58M), former owner Dr. Min Young Cha ($1.8M), and Renaissance Imaging Medical Associates ($2.4M). The case also included claims of retaliation against the whistleblower, former executive Paul Pew, resolving his personal claims for wrongful termination and distress.