Family of Kristen Smart Filed Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Cal Poly

In recent news, Kristin Smart's family filed a civil complaint against Cal Poly, claiming negligence and wrongful death.

The Case: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The Court: Superior Court of California, San Luis Obispo County

The Case No.: 24CV-0046

The Plaintiff: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The plaintiff in the case, the Smart Family, filed a civil complaint after the Cal Poly President publicly apologized to the family in May 2023, recognizing that things should have been handled differently and stating that he "personally wish[ed] that they had." Kristin Smart was a 19-year-old Cal Poly student who disappeared in May 1996 after attending an off-campus party. Twenty-six years later, in October of 2022, Paul Flores was found guilty of her murder.

The Defendant: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The defendant in the case, Cal Poly, allegedly breached its legal duty by not pursuing a missing persons case promptly, failing to interview witnesses promptly, not sealing the primary suspect's dorm room (Paul Flores), and allowing the primary suspect's dorm room to be sanitized before the search that was conducted 16 days after Smart's disappearance. In addition to the university's actions following the disappearance of Smart, they allegedly failed to take appropriate action to multiple other reports about Paul Flores's threatening stalking and harassing behaviors before Smart's murder.

The Case: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

While the Smart family has exhausted the procedural processes available to receive the full investigative file from Cal Poly, they still have not received it. The Smart family alleges that the primary suspect in their daughter's disappearance and murder should not have been on campus based on prior complaints and incidents. Secondly, they claim that the university was negligent in responding to Smart's disappearance.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Google and Google Co-Founder Sued for Wrongful Death After Ferry Flight Crash

Google and its co-founder, Brin, face a wrongful death lawsuit after a ferry flight crashed on the first leg from California to Fiji.

The Case: Maria Magdalena Olarte (Estate of Lance Maclean, deceased) v. Theodore M. Neale, Sergey Brin, Bayshore Global Management LLC, Google LLC, Seafly LLC, Southern Cross Aviation Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive

The Court: California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 24CV430717

The Plaintiff: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al.

Lance Maclean was one of two pilots aboard the flight. The plaintiff in the case, Maria Magdalena Olarte, is Maclean’s widow and a personal representative of the Estate of Lance Maclean. Olarte filed suit claiming wrongful death and survival negligence.

The Defendant: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al

The defendant in the case, Brin, Google LLC, et al., faces allegations that a poorly installed modification caused the plane crash off the coast of California in May 2023. The defendants also face claims that recovery was slowed intentionally to accommodate efforts to destroy evidence of the cause of the crash.

The Case: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al

According to an updated complaint filed on February 13, 2024, Maclean and his co-pilot, Dean Rushfedlt, were hired to fly Brin’s seaplane from California to Fiji for island-hopping with friends. Brin’s seaplane is an $8M twin-engine Viking Air Twin Otter Series 400 that requires an auxiliary fuel system. According to the complaint, a mechanic did it from “memory” - not consulting a checklist or logging the work with the FAA. According to court documents, the fuel system failed during the first leg of the flight to Hawaii, and the seaplane crashed into the ocean while trying to return to California. While the Coast Guard arrived on site within 15 minutes, the seaplane was upside-down and partially submerged, and they could not retrieve either of the pilots.

Following the incident, the plaintiff claims Brin said he would assist with recovery. However, Brin’s representatives allegedly told Olarte that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was blocking the recovery of the bodies. According to the complaint, The NOAA denied the claim that they were preventing the recovery of the bodies. Olarte seeks damages and a jury trial.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did a Lack of Proper Safety Checks Result in a Pre-Trial Inmate’s Death?

The County of Orange is facing wrongful death allegations after OCSD deputies allegedly failed to conduct proper safety checks of a mentally ill inmate.

The Case: Lucio v. County of Orange

The Court: United States District Court-Central District of California

The Case No.: 8:24 cv- 00359

The Plaintiffs: Lucio v. County of Orange

The plaintiffs in the case are the family of Ronald Garcia Lucio, Jr, who died while in custody at the Santa Ana County Jail. According to Lucio’s children and parent, Lucio was a pre-trial inmate who suffered from mental illness. The wrongful death lawsuit claims Lucio died while being housed in Orange County Central Jail due to a lack of proper safety checks for a mentally ill patient/inmate.

The Incident: Lucio v. County of Orange

According to the court records, on March 18, 2022, Lucio received his evening meal in his Orange County Central Jail cell at 3:20 pm. At 7:12 pm, the OCSD Deputy entered Lucio’s cell with a vocational nurse to conduct a well check. The deputy observed Lucio lying in the lower bunk on his right side and made a “man down” call once the radio that resulted in additional deputies and medical staff reporting for assistance. At 7:14 pm, the deputies moved Luxio from the bottom bunk in his cell to the dayroom floor outside his cell, where the medical staff began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) arrived and took over Lucio’s treatment at 7:27 pm. Upon arrival, the paramedics found Lucio pulseless and noted he was exhibiting the onset of rigor mortis. OCFA personnel pronounced Lucio dead at 7:30 pm.

The Case: Lucio v. County of Orange

The case, Lucio v. County of Orange, claims that deputies and Orange County Central Jail medical staff failed to provide proper safety checks that could have prevented the death of Lucio, a pre-trial inmate who suffered from mental illness.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

BNSF Railway Company Faces Allegations of Toxic Diesel Exhaust Levels in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Did BNSF Railway Company expose workers to toxic levels of diesel exhaust? A wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a deceased railway employee claims exposure on the job caused his terminal cancer.

The Case: Garner v. BNSF Railway Co.

The Court: Fourth Appellate District, State of California, Division One

The Case No.: CIVDS1720288

Garner appealed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, concluded that the trial court erred in excluding Garner's experts. The court held that the trial court's gatekeeping role is not to choose between competing expert opinions, and it does not involve weighing the persuasiveness of an expert's opinion, substituting its own opinion for the expert's opinion, or resolving scientific controversies. The court found that Garner's experts used their scientific judgment and expertise to evaluate the available data and determine whether to draw an inference of causation, which is a matter of informed judgment, not scientific methodology. The court reversed the orders and judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter new orders, denying BNSF's motions in limine.

The Plaintiff: Garner v. BNSF Railway Co.

The plaintiff in the case, Gary Garner, filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging his father was exposed to toxic levels of diesel exhaust during his forty years working for BNSF Railway Co. According to the plaintiff, the toxicity on the job caused his father's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and subsequent death. The plaintiff presented multiple experts discussing whether diesel exhaust and its constituents can cause cancer (including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and whether the exposure his father was subjected to at work caused his cancer.

The Defendant: Garner v. BNSF Railway Co.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion to exclude Garner's causation experts from the trial, finding that the science presented as a foundation for the expert reports was inadequate. According to the court, there was too great an analytical gap between the opinions of the experts and the data presented.

The Case: Garner v. BNSF Railway Co.

The California wrongful death lawsuit, Garner v. BNSF Railway Co., was dismissed before trial.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago

Appellate Court Revived a Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Cleveland Clinic

The Appellate Court revived a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a former patient's widow, finding the County Judge wrongfully barred a physician from testifying regarding alleged substandard care.

The Case: Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic

The Court: Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

The Case No.: CV-19-920144

The Plaintiff: Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic

Dennis Kittis was a 74-year-old retired U.S. Army veteran who worked at a General Motors factory and loved running. On January 4, 2018, Kittis went to Fairview Hospital with pain in his stomach. Doctors discovered his bowel was obstructed and performed surgery the next day. The Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic wrongful death lawsuit was filed by the widow of Dennis Kittis, who died days after undergoing bowel obstruction surgery at Fairview Hospital. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Ashley Kilbane barred a physician scheduled to testify regarding the alleged substandard care Kittis received from the doctors at Fairview following his bowel obstruction surgery. David Brooks was a physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. After barring the testimony, Judge Kilbane granted the Clinic's lawyers' request to rule in their favor, dismissing the case.

The Defendant: Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic

The defendant in the case, Cleveland Clinic, runs Fairview Hospital at 18101 Lorain Ave. in Cleveland. During court motions, lawyers for the Cleveland Clinic denied that any of their employees acted negligently. Additionally, they claim that no surgical intervention could have prevented Kittis' death.

The Case: Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic

The 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals revived the Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic wrongful death lawsuit filed by a woman whose husband died days after his bowel obstruction surgery at Fairview Hospital in January 2018. The case was reinstated following a unanimous appellate panel that found the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge wrongly barred the physician intended to testify regarding the alleged substandard medical care.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Parents Filed Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Stockton Student Fatally Stabbed on Campus

The parents of a Stockton high school student who was stabbed to death by an intruder on campus filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming the school failed to implement its own safety plans.

The Case: Reynaga v. Stockton Unified School District

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: STK-CV-UPI-2023-2710

The Plaintiff: Reynaga v. Stockton Unified School District

The plaintiffs in the case are the parents of slain Stockton high school student Alycia Reynaga. Alycia was murdered at Amos Alonzo Stagg High School in Stockton. The alleged suspect, Anthony Gray, drove into the high school parking lot in front of the school, entered the campus armed with a knife through an unlocked gate, and fatally stabbed Alycia Reynaga. The Reynaga family claims that Alycia's stabbing and subsequent death on the high school campus could have been avoided if the school district implemented consistent safety measures.

The Defendant: Reynaga v. Stockton Unified School District

Alycia's parents filed a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against the Stockton Unified School District, former Superintendent John Ramirez, Jr., and Amos Alonzo Stagg High School Principal Brett Toliver after the death of their daughter on campus.

The Case: Reynaga v. Stockton Unified School District

The case was filed on March 3, 2023, in San Joaquin County Superior Court. According to the wrongful death complaint, the family alleges that the negligence of employees of Stockton Unified School District caused Reynaga's death. According to the lawsuit, the high school determined that very strong security measures were warranted before the incident but failed to implement its own safety plan. The wrongful death lawsuit claims not only serious negligence on the part of the school district board and administration but also designates the incident as part of a "systemic failure" to protect the students. The plaintiffs claim that the security on campus was reduced prior to the incident despite officials being aware for years that students needed additional protection on campus. The Stockton school where Reynaga was fatally stabbed increased security measures after two more incidences of campus intruders were reported.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Second Kratom Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed in Cowlitz County

The second Kratom wrongful death lawsuit filed in Cowlitz County lists multiple defendants facing allegations that the product is dangerous and shouldn’t even be available on store shelves.

The Case: Rachel McKibban v. Jopen, LLC

The Court: Superior Court of the State of Washington in Cowlitz County

The Case No.: Case No. 23-2-01183-08

The Plaintiff: Rachel McKibban v. Jopen, LLC

The plaintiff in the case is Rachel McKibban, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jordan McKibban, deceased. Rachel filed the second kratom wrongful death lawsuit in Cowlitz County, Washington. The suit was filed in December 2023 following the tragic death of Jordan McKibban, 37 years old. Jordan McKibban was a dedicated, successful working man who loved his family, fishing, gardening, and cooking. He worked for an organic food distributor and enjoyed good health but struggled with pain in his hands and back, for which he turned to kratom for relief (including Whole Herbs capsules, Hush liquid shots, and the Cloud House powders). According to the lawsuit filed by Rachel McKibban, Jordan came home from work on April 5, 2022, and collapsed. His nephew discovered him unconscious. Paramedics rushed him to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The autopsy report lists mitragynine, a compound in kratom, as the cause of death.

The Defendant: Rachel McKibban v. Jopen, LLC

The defendants in the case include multiple manufacturers and sellers of kratom brands, including Whole Herbs kratom capsules, Hush Kratom liquid shots, and bulk kratom powder sold through Cloud House Vaporz (Texas limited liability company; LP IND., LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; CAG HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; RMH HOLDINGS, INC., a Wyoming corporation; OLISTICA, an unincorporated association; MIT THERAPY INC., an Idaho corporation; DURITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., an Idaho corporation; HUSH WORLDWIDE LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; DRIP DROP DISTRO LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; BEDROCK MFG LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; CLOUD HOUSE VAPORZ, INC., a Washington corporation; and JOHN & JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 10).

The plaintiff claims the defendants in the case must be held accountable for their role in McKibban’s kratom-induced death. McKibban’s wrongful death lawsuit brings attention to the growing number of deaths in the U.S. for which kratom is listed as the cause of death, citing 2023 research that finds kratom 63 times more deadly than other natural products available for consumer purchase.

The Case: Rachel McKibban v. Jopen, LLC

The case, Rachel McKibban v. Jopen, LLC, raises serious concerns about the kratom industry and the safety of consumers.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.