TAILORED LEGAL COUNSEL FOR YOUR UNIQUE SITUATION
PRACTICE AREAS OF SUCCESS
We are experienced trial lawyers and offer outstanding legal representation in matters involving personal injuries, toxic torts, and accidents. With more than 50 years of combined litigation experience, coupled with our background in insurance coverage, we are able to offer expert representation while helping our clients navigate the nuances of the insurance policies that may be involved in connection with an accident claim.
$13 Million — Toxic Mold Judgment
An entire family became ill as a result of defective construction of a basement. Defects in the construction and waterproofing material allowed moisture to penetrate the basement and fostered the growth of toxic mold and bacteria. The contractor tried to conceal the water.
Landmark $5 Million Victory Against County of Orange
Strongin Law Firm Wins Landmark $5 Million Victory Against County of Orange and After Sheriff’s Deputies Training Exercise in Parking Lot Causes Car Crash
by Strongin, LLP | May 15, 2023 | Blog Coming off of back-to-back-to-back trial victories, with only the weekend in between the last trial and this one, on February 16, 2023, Eric Strongin obtained a verdict for his clients, against the County of Orange of nearly $5 million after his client was broadsided in a parking lot where two Orange County Sheriff Deputies were following a vehicle with expired registration. The driver of the vehicle was a deputy that was being trained by the deputy in the passenger side of the vehicle. After spotting the vehicle with expired registration exit the parking lot, the instructor told his trainee to "gun it." The deputies then accelerated to a speed of just over 50 miles per hour when they broadsided the plaintiff, Chaya Prizer, at an intersection. The County of Orange argued that the deputies had the right-of-way and should be assigned zero liability for the accident. The deputies did not have a stop sign prior to the intersection, but the Prizer vehicle did. However, Eric Strongin argued that the deputies had an obligation to act reasonably, under the circumstances, and that they failed to take appropriate precautions when they accelerated the Sheriff's vehicle at an excessive rate of speed in a private parking lot, without activating lights or sirens. The jury agreed and held the deputies primarily responsible for causing the accident. Prior to trial, the County of Orange offered zero dollars to settle the case. (Prizer v. OC Sheriff, County of Orange)
Santa Barbara Area Painter Wins $200K Judgment
Santa Barbara Area Painter Wins $200K Judgment Against Manufacturer of Bond's One Time Exterior Wood Treatment After Use of the Product Causes Adverse Reaction.
by Strongin, LLP | May 18, 2023 | Blog Experienced painter, Gregory Simcoe, developed symptoms, including contact dermatitis, cough, dizziness and memory recall issues after he used Bond’s One Time Exterior Wood Treatment to refinish the wood exterior of the Grassini Winery in Santa Barbara After rejecting Bond Distributing’s offer to settle the case for $25,000, Eric Strongin and the team at Strongin, LLP, took the matter to a Santa Barbara jury, and obtained a judgment, which after costs are added, will be in excess of $200,000. In addition to the $200,000, the Strongin law firm obtained a confidential settlement from Grassini Family Vineyards, the Vineyard that hired Mr. Simcoe to do the work and supplied him with the Bond’s One Time product. Mr. Strongin recalls that the jury was one of the most educated juries that he has ever tried a case in front of, including a Professor at the University of California in Organic Geochemistry and Geobiology, and three jurors with PhDs, two of which graduated from the California Institute of Technology (“CalTech”) and another that worked in engineering at a top-level government research facility. However, the Strongin law firm spared no expense in litigating the case to verdict, and they supported the case with multiple expert witnesses, including toxicologist Dr. Nachman Brautbar (who also testified as part of the Hinkley groundwater contamination case which was the basis for the movie, “Erin Brockovich.”). (Simcoe v. Bond)
The Strongin Law Firm Wins 5-Year-Long Fight
The Strongin Law Firm Wins 5-Year-Long Fight Against the Irvine Company Exposing Irvine Company's Deceptive Practices
by Strongin, LLP | May 18, 2023 | Blog The Irvine Company, and its LLC, Antivo Los Olivos, took it personally when its former tenant, Nic Yavelak, made a claim against it after discovering that the Irvine Company allowed hidden mold to grow behind cabinets and within the HVAC closet in his apartment for several months before he discovered the problem. The Irvine Company lawyers argued that the leak that caused the mold growth in the apartment happened in June 2018, and that the Irvine Company acted promptly in response to the June leak from the apartment above. However, Strongin, LLP lawyers Eric Strongin and Kseniya Stupak argued to the jury that The Irvine Company failed to follow industry standards for remediation in January, and they moved a new tenant into a contaminated apartment, with hidden black mold, without disclosing the prior flood or remediation. Although the Irvine Company was aware of the industrywide standards for mold remediation, as published by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification (“IICRC”) in its S520 guidelines, Strongin, LLP lawyers Eric Strongin and Kseniya Stupak, pointed out that the Irvine Company’s failure to follow industry guidelines during a January mold and flood incident in January of 2018, before Nic Yavelak moved in, was the reason that Nic Yavelak became ill, and had to move out. Strongin and Stupak also argued that the Irvine Company used unlicensed and uncertified individuals, with minimal training, to conduct the January 2018 remediation. Instead, the Irvine Communities developed its own remediation guidelines which sidestepped those of the ICRC, although they claim that their guidelines are loosely based on the national standards. However, the Irvine Company did not list what those guidelines were, failed to document any of the January 2018 remediation, because their own standards did not require it (differing from the IICRC standard which requires documentation prior to, during and after remediation), and then certified the apartment was fully remediated based on only a visual inspection of one of their employees. An Orange County agreed that the Irvine Company was negligent and breached California's implied warranty of habitability by awarding the tenant $423,000 after the Irvine Company offered $0 to resolve the matter at the start of trial. The Strongin law firm anticipates that the total judgment will be well in excess of $500,000 because the verdict was over a pre-trial offer of $175,000 (under Code of Civil Procedure section 998). Thus, in addition to statutory costs, the Irvine Company will need to pay for the cost of the expert witnesses hired by the plaintiff.
Securing Justice and Restoration: $1 Million Settlement for Toxic Mold Victims
We are thrilled to announce a significant victory in a complex case concerning toxic mold exposure
by Strongin, LLP | May 18, 2023 | Blog Strongin, LLP was entrusted by our client, who had endured years of living with toxic mold, bacteria, and other contaminants within her apartment. The devastating consequences of this exposure resulted in life-altering pulmonological injuries for our client. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our incredible client for placing her trust in us. Her resolve to see this matter through trial, if necessary, rather than accept offers that did not fully compensate her for what she suffered, was critical in securing this settlement. When faced with the risks and costs of trial, it is easy to take a much smaller settlement amount, and then run the other way. We never run. We will take every case to trial if necessary. The team’s relentless efforts culminated in a $1 million settlement. This settlement not only provides our client with the financial resources necessary for her ongoing care and recovery but also serves as a powerful reminder that people needed to be treated fairly, even if it means a landlord or property manager has to pay more by hiring the proper professionals to fix health and safety issues right, the first time. For two decades the Overlook failed to address underlying plumbing and water intrusion issues---instead making only Band-Aid repairs that did not fully address the problem. (Powers v. The Overlook at Laguna Apartment Homes, L.P.)
Landmark $2.5M Settlement Reached for Elderly Victims of Negligent Housing Conditions
We are pleased to announce that our personal injury law firm has secured a groundbreaking settlement on behalf of over 30 elderly individuals residing in a senior independent living facility in Hesperia, California.
by Strongin, LLP | July 15, 2023 | Blog The defendants, Fairview Equity, LLC, Hesperia Senior Independent Living, LLC, and Martha Weibert, were found responsible for subjecting the plaintiffs to deplorable living conditions, including toxic mold, uninhabitable spaces, and general disregard for their well-being. The plaintiffs, representing some of the most vulnerable members of our society, endured inhumane conditions such as exposure to toxic mold, rodent infestations, raw sewage leaks, non-functioning plumbing, and more. Despite repeated requests for repairs, the defendants failed to maintain the property and even engaged in retaliatory actions against those who voiced concerns. Tragically, four plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit have already lost their lives due to illnesses associated with these wretched living conditions. The $2.5 million settlement reflects the severity of the defendants' negligence and elder abuse. The plaintiffs, who are predominantly senior citizens living on limited means, faced immense hardships and suffered severe health consequences as a direct result of the defendants' actions. The defendants' failure to disclose the presence of toxic mold and their deceptive claims of a safe living environment further exacerbated the plaintiffs' plight. The settlement serves as a significant victory in the fight for justice and accountability. It not only compensates the victims for the harm they endured but also sends a powerful message that slumlords will face consequences for exploiting vulnerable individuals. Our law firm remains committed to representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases, particularly those involving elder abuse, toxic torts, and unsafe living conditions. Please contact our firm for further information or if you or a loved one have been affected by similar circumstances. We are dedicated to fighting for justice and protecting the rights of those who have suffered due to the negligence of others. Title: Seeking Justice for Elderly Victims: $2.5 Million Settlement Reached in Mold and Toxicity Lawsuit Summary: Our personal injury law firm, dedicated to representing plaintiffs, has successfully secured a $2.5 million settlement on behalf of over 30 elderly individuals living in a senior independent living facility in Hesperia, California. The defendants, operating under the names Fairview Equity, LLC, Hesperia Senior Independent Living, LLC, and Martha Weibert, demonstrated a complete disregard for the well-being of their residents. These vulnerable seniors endured deplorable living conditions, including exposure to toxic mold, vermin infestations, sewage leaks, and non-functioning plumbing, among other hazards. The defendants not only failed to maintain and repair the property but also engaged in retaliatory actions against tenants who voiced complaints. The persistently wet building materials and unaddressed leaks created a breeding ground for toxic mold and bacteria, resulting in severe health consequences for the plaintiffs. Four plaintiffs have tragically lost their lives due to illnesses associated with the conditions at Avenue G. Our law firm fought tirelessly to hold the defendants accountable for their negligence and elder abuse, shedding light on the hazardous and uninhabitable state of the property. Despite the defendants' attempts to conceal the mold problem and misrepresent the safety of the property, our firm successfully demonstrated their knowledge of the harmful conditions and their refusal to take proper remedial action. Mold tests confirmed the presence of highly toxic molds, including Aspergillus, Penicillium, Chaetomium, and Stachybotrys, exacerbating the health risks for the elderly residents. The settlement serves as a victory for justice and a message to slumlords who target vulnerable populations. Our firm remains committed to fighting for the rights of plaintiffs affected by personal injuries, ensuring their voices are heard and compensation is obtained for the damages they have suffered.
Burn Victim Receives $2.3M Million in Landmark Settlement
We are thrilled to announce the successful resolution of a significant personal injury case involving a burn victim who suffered severe injuries when he disconnected a propane cylinder from an outdoor grill.
by Strongin, LLP | Aug 12, 2023 | Blog Burn Victim Receives $2.3M Million in Landmark Settlements with Blue Rhino and Others Over Defective Propane Cylinder that Engulfed Man in Flames. This landmark settlement serves as a crucial step toward justice for the victim and highlights the importance of holding responsible parties accountable for their actions. Our client, whose life was forever changed due to this devastating incident, experienced life-threatening burns as a result of a fire caused by a defective valve that was equipped on the malfunctioning propane cylinder. The subject “valve was manufactured and sold new through Blue Rhino in 2002,” according to its attorney, Michael C. McMullen. Not only was the valve defective, but the propane refiller also failed to catch the problem before placing the cylinder back into public circulation. This incident not only left our client with physical and emotional scars but also shed light on the need for improved safety standards within the industry. The combined settlements from all the parties involved, including Blue Rhino, the propane refill operator, and other relevant entities, exceeded $2 million. This substantial sum will go a long way in providing our client with the necessary support for their ongoing medical treatment, rehabilitation, and future wellbeing. This successful resolution underscores the importance of product safety, particularly in industries where a lapse in quality control can have devastating consequences. It sends a powerful message to companies like Blue Rhino and others in the propane industry that negligence will not go unchecked. The case serves as a reminder that consumer safety should always be a top priority, urging manufacturers and distributors to uphold the highest standards of quality and accountability.
$385,000 — Strongin LLP Clients Win Punitive Damages After Wedding Venue Shut Down Just Weeks Before Wedding Day
by Strongin, LLP | Jan 12, 2023 | Blog In a recent ruling, a couple represented by Strongin Burger prevailed in Orange County Superior Court after their dream wedding was canceled last minute. The couple was set to be wed in Irvine in June of 2019 but found out just weeks before their wedding date that their venue had been shut down. After further investigation, they realized that the venue had never been permitted to host weddings, that the structures and electrical on the grounds were unpermitted and potentially dangerous, and that the venue had been cited by the city and ordered to cease all events in April, weeks before the couple was informed that the venue was shut down. The plaintiffs filed suit on March 11, 2020, claiming that the wedding venue breached its contract and acted fraudulently and with the knowledge that it did not have the proper permits to host weddings at the site. Prior to filing suit plaintiffs asked for their deposit back from the venue and refused to return any money. After a four-day jury trial, the jury held in favor of the plaintiffs, finding a breach of the contract and fraud by both the venue and the venue owner. Plaintiffs were granted economic damages, noneconomic damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, in an amount that far exceeded their original deposit.
September 2021 – The National Trial Lawyers Reselects Eric Strongin as a Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyer
by Strongin, LLP | Sep 12, 2021 | Awards and Recognition, Blog For Immediate Release The National Trial Lawyers is pleased to announce that Eric Strongin of Strongin | Burger, LLP has been re-selected as a Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyer in California after his first year as an exceptionally respected member. This honor has The National Trial Lawyers is pleased to announce that Eric Strongin of Strongin | Burger, LLP has been re-selected as a Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyer in California after his first year as an exceptionally respected member. This honor has been given to Mr. Strongin for his superior skills and qualifications in the legal field. Membership in this exclusive organization is by invitation only and is limited to the top 100 attorneys in each state or region who have demonstrated excellence and have achieved outstanding results in their careers in either civil plaintiff or criminal defense law. The National Trial Lawyers is a professional organization of premier American trial lawyers who have demonstrated exceptional qualifications in criminal defense or civil plaintiff law. The National Trial Lawyers provides recognition to these distinguished attorneys, and also provides essential legal news, information, and continuing education to trial lawyers across the country. During Eric Strongin’s first year as a Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyer,Mr. Strongin has shown that he has continuously exemplified superior qualifications, leadership skills, and trial results as an admirable trial lawyer. The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 would like to thank Mr. Strongin for their continued and valued membership during such thriving times for this exclusive organization. The National Trial Lawyers anticipates exceptional growth for Mr. Strongin as an outstanding trial lawyer and well-respected member of The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100.
February 20, 2020 – KTLA News Features Attorney Eric Strongin and West Hollywood Clients in Toxic Mold Matter
by Strongin, LLP | Mar 19, 2020 | Blog Residents of Hollywood Apartment Building Say Many Have Fallen Sick From Black Mold Residents of a Hollywood apartment building say several people have become sick from black mold and some, including children, have been hospitalized. Two tenants paid thousands of dollars to have their units tested for mold in November but they say the building’s management still hasn’t properly fixed the issue. One resident says the problem has … Continue reading
by Strongin, LLP | Jul 10, 2019 | Blog https://lawyers.usnews.com/lawyers/eric-strongin/30056 #law #bestlawyers #personalinjury #personalinjuryattorney #personalinjurylawyer #autoaccident #toxicexposurelaw #toxictort #moldexposure #toxicmold #wrongfuldeath #burnvictims #eric #insurancecoverage
STRONGIN, LLP named to Best Law Firm List by U.S. News & World Report for Personal Injury and Insurance Coverage
July 2, 2019, Attorney Eric Strongin wins before the California Court of Appeal after favorable verdict on behalf of homeowner against HOA
by Strongin, LLP | Jul 10, 2019 | Blog 1022 10th Street HOA, represented by the Adams Stirling law firm appealed from a judgment obtained by attorneys Eric Strongin and Sheyanne Bane before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Honorable Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presided over the trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on July 2, 2019. Read the Appellate Court’s full opinion here: Appeal – OPINION B288063 After Gill Longmire’s condominium unit suffered water intrusion-related damage from leaks originating in the common area, she sued her homeowners’ association, 1022 10th Street, Inc. (HOA). As part of an August 2012 settlement agreement, HOA agreed to make repairs to the common areas, and Longmire released any claims against HOA predating the agreement. More than two years later, HOA still had not made the promised repairs. Longmire sued HOA again, this time for breach of the settlement agreement, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty after mold growth in her unit made her increasingly sick. A jury awarded her $308,150 in damages, and after interest and costs were added, that number climbed to $430,000. The HOA dragged Longmire through an appeal that lasted 1 1/2 years. HOA now appeals. It does not contest the breach of its contractual, fiduciary, and duty of care obligations to Longmire. Instead, it argues Longmire introduced no evidence HOA’s post-August 2012 conduct caused her damage. In particular, HOA posits all the damages incurred by Longmire preexisted the 2012 settlement agreement, and therefore were subject to the general release in that agreement. As substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that post-August 2012 breaches caused Longmire damage, we reject HOA’s argument and affirm.
by Strongin, LLP | Jan 29, 2019 | Blog Eric Strongin obtains $11.8 million dollar judgment on behalf of our client after he was brutally assaulted following an altercation in Oceanside, California. After leaving a restaurant near the Oceanside Pier, our client was beaten unconscious by someone he had never met before. Friends took our client to a nearby residence where the police and an ambulance were called. Once the police arrived at the residence, they immediately began blaming our client for his injuries. Our client was taken to the hospital and treated for a broken clavicle, fractured skull, fractured elbow and broken nose. When our office received the police report, the name of the perpetrator had been redacted. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, we were able to obtain the identity of the perpetrator and obtain compensatory damages for our client. Our firm fought to have the perpetrator’s name revealed, and after police were forced to disclose the perpetrator’s name, SHS secured a judgment from the Superior Court for teh County of San Diego in the amount of $11.8 million.
$11.8M Judgment for Assault Victim
by Strongin, LLP | Nov 29, 2018 | Blog Our Client rented a newly rebuilt home in Laguna Beach. Shortly after moving into the property, she discovered what she believed to be mold growing in one of the cabinets in the garage of the home, and she reported it to the property manager. Defendants hired a handyman to address the issue. Plaintiff filed suit against the landlord and property manager alleging that they failed to take appropriate measures to fix the property until after our client moved out. The jury agreed and issued a verdict in favor of our client. The landlord and property management company appealed, but eventually dismissed their appeal resulting in an award (with interest and costs) of over $500,000.
STRONGIN Wins 10-Day Jury Trial For Laguna Beach Tenant For Landlord’s Failure to Deal Properly With Moisture and Mold
$750,000 for Victim of Residential Toxic Mold
by Strongin, LLP | Jun 15, 2019 | Blog Plaintiff sustained life-altering injuries after being exposed to toxic mold while living at the home she rented with her husband in San Clemente, CA. Plaintiff and her husband moved into a home that the owners knew, and failed to disclose, had a history of leaks. Although the roof was eventually repaired, the owners of th home never took the important steps of removing the wet building materials, including drywall and portions of the ceiling, that had become wet or damp when it would rain, and the roof would leak, and remediating any fungal growth. Failure to remove the wet building materials created the perfect environment for mold growth since materials such as drywall are a perfect food source for the mold. It was only after vigorous litigation by partner, Eric Strongin, and when the parties were just days away from starting, what would be a 10 to 15-day jury trial, that the defendant landlords relented, and the matter was settled in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $750,000. As a result of these efforts, plaintiff was able to move out of the home, and able to pay for costly medical treatment that she needs to recover from the effects of exposure.
Eric Strongin, Selected to 2019 List of SuperLawyers
by Strongin, LLP | Jan 30, 2019 | Blog Attorney, Eric Strongin, has been selected as one of the top attorneys in Southern California for 2019 by Super Lawyers for Plaintiff Personal Injury representation. This is the 6th time that he has been honored with this distinction. He was also selected in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018. The Super Lawyers list recognizes no more than 5 percent of attorneys in each state. Strongin has previously received the Super Lawyers designation for Insurance Coverage as well. SuperLawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Super Lawyers Magazine features the list and profiles of selected attorneys and is distributed to attorneys in the state or region and the ABA-accredited law school libraries. Super Lawyers is also published as a special section in leading city and regional magazines across the country. In the United States, Super Lawyers Magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers. Mr. Strongin is also: Rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale-Hubbell Named as “10 Best Attorneys” in California for 2017 and 2018 by American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys Selected as Top 100 Attorneys in So. CA in 2018 by L.A. Magazine Selected as one of “California’s Top 10 Attorneys for Personal Injury Law” by Attorney and Practice Magazine.
Eric Strongin Selected to “Super Lawyers – Rising Stars” for the Third Year in a row.
by Strongin, LLP | Jan 23, 2015 | Blog Eric Strongin has once again been selected as one of the top attorneys in Southern California for 2015 by Super Lawyers as a “Rising Star.” Strongin was also selected in 2013 and 2014. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in the state are named to Rising Stars Super Lawyers. Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Super Lawyers Magazine features the list and profiles of selected attorneys and is distributed to attorneys in the state or region and the ABA-accredited law school libraries. Super Lawyers is also published as a special section in leading city and regional magazines across the country. In the United States, Super Lawyers Magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers.
Winning Verdict After 5-Day Jury Trial
by Strongin, LLP | Jan 23, 2015 | Blog
$1.2M Victory for Lloyd’s of London in Fine Art Subrogation Case
by Strongin, LLP | Sep 1, 2014 | Blog In this Subrogation/Contribution matter, the insured, LA Packing, Crating & Transport (“LAP”) specialized in the shipment, storage and installation of fine art. LAP had a commercial liability (CGL) policy issued by Transguard Insurance. Lloyd’s (Underwriters) issued a Fine Art policy that covered the insured (LAP) for liability for damage to fine art that is being shipped or stored by the insured. While an LAP employee was unwrapping several paintings at a customer’s home for the purpose of installing them, the employee tore off the corrugated cardboard. After he had removed the cardboard, the customer came into the room where the paintings were being hung and began screaming at the LAP employee. Apparently, the stapled on cardboard that is normally used to protect the frames from damage during shipping or storage was part of the art. Lloyd’s defended and indemnified the insured, and hired a law firm to defend its insured against a lawsuit brought by the owners of the paintings against LAP. Thereafter, Lloyd’s brought suit against Transguard seeking contribution after Transguard had denied LAP’s claim and refused to defend. Transguard argued that only the Lloyd’s fine art policy applied. In addition, Transguard argued that its care, custody or control exclusion—which provided that the policy did not cover “liability for damage to property in the care, custody or control of the insured,”—barred coverage under its policy since the paintings were in the LAP employee’s hands at the very moment of damage. On appeal, Strongin persuaded the trial court and Court of Appeal that Transguard’s interpretation and view of the care, custody or control exclusion and the Lloyd’s policy was incorrect. The trial court was convinced, and completely reversed its position taken earlier on in the case in denying Lloyd’s Summary Judgment Motion and finding that only the Lloyd’s policy covered the loss. The Court of Appeal agreed with Strongin and the trial court, and it affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Lloyd’s favor. The Court of Appeal was persuaded that Lloyd’s had no liability under its Fine Art policy to either indemnify, defend, or even share in the defense of the insured. The trial court judgment finding Transguard liable on its CGL policy for the full amount of the defense fees and costs, plus indemnity, was upheld on appeal. With interest, Lloyd’s would be entitled to receive from Transguard approximately $1.3M. Transguard petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Appellate Court decision, but it later withdrew its petition.
Partner Eric Strongin Named to “Southern California Rising Stars- Super Lawyers 2014”
by Strongin, LLP | Jun 11, 2014 | Blog Partner, Eric Strongin is recognized as “Southern California Rising Stars Super Lawyers 2014” Super Lawyers only selects 2.5% of the licensed active attorneys in the state as Rising Stars making this a significant accolade. This is the second year in a row that Strongin has been recognized by Super Lawyers.
STRONGIN is Successful in Obtaining Terminating Sanctions
by Strongin, LLP | Dec 1, 2014 | Blog The matter involved a dispute between a Los Angeles based event producer and a promoter where the promoter sued the producer for $770,000 in alleged damages after the producer allegedly refused to allow ticketholders into an event after the promoter failed to provide a list of ticket sales to verify the validity of the tickets. As a result, the promoter alleged that its reputation in the community was irreparably harmed. When the promoter failed to verify responses to discovery or to appear for the second half of her deposition, Mr. Strongin obtained court orders compelling her to verify and appear, along with monetary sanctions. When the promoter failed to comply, the Court granted Strongin’s request for terminating sanctions which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the answer to the cross-complaint was stricken–thus leaving the defendant/cross-complainant with the sole obligation of submitting evidence of damages at a prove-up hearing. It issuing its ruling, the Court reasoned as follows: In deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) At this time, the Court deems terminating sanctions to be appropriate. At the time this motion is heard, trial will be about two weeks away. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has not provided complete verified responses to written discovery or complete production of documents, to complete her deposition, despite court orders that she do both. (See Declaration of Eric B. Strongin.) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s failure to adequately respond to discovery has prejudiced Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s right to proceed with trial. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant claims that her attorney has abandoned her. However, while this may be grounds for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant to seek legal recourse against her attorney, she must bear the consequences of permitting the counsel of her choice to represent her to this point of the litigation: A dismissal for failure to obey a court’s discovery orders has the effect of a judgment on the merits against a plaintiff. (Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 [137 Cal.Rptr. 332].) As the court stated in Kahn, “[The] persistent refusal of a party to make discovery results in a presumption, as a matter of law, that the asserted causes of action are without merit.” (Ibid.) With respect to plaintiff’s argument that the dismissal of her complaint against defendant was based on the willful failure of plaintiff’s attorney, not plaintiff herself, to comply with the court-ordered discovery, it should be borne in mind that plaintiff “voluntarily chose this attorney as her representative in the action, and she cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent.” (Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 626, 633-634 [8 L.Ed.2d 734, 740, 82 S.Ct. 1386].) Any other notion would be totally inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent (Id. at p. 634 [8 L.Ed.2d at p. 740]), and would allow litigants or their counsel to turn a deaf ear to the processes of the court with impunity, thus precluding effective judicial administration at the trial court level (Kahn v. Kahn, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at p. 383; Bernstein v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 449, 451.)
