USC Player’s Widow Seeks a Minimum of $1.8M in California Wrongful Death Case

Alana Gee filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association on behalf of the Estate of Matthew Gee.

The Case: Gee v. NCAA

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 20 STCV 43627

The Plaintiff: Gee v. NCAA

The plaintiff in the case, Gee, alleges her decedent was a college football player who developed Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy due to repeated blows to the head sustained during his time playing on the University of Southern California team. Gee filed a complaint for Negligence (Survival Action) and Negligence (Wrongful Death) in Nov. 2020.

The Defendant: Gee v. NCAA

The defendant in the case, NCAA, argued that the plaintiff’s negligence claim failed for four reasons.

1) the plaintiff didn’t establish a special relationship existed with Gee or with the coaching staff at the University of Southern California

2) the plaintiff can’t establish that the NCAA owed a duty to Gee

3) the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars the claim

4) the plaintiff can’t establish that the NCAA caused Gee’s injuries.

The Case: Gee v. NCAA

The trial started in October 2022. The plaintiff’s legal counsel argued that the repeated head trauma Matthew Gee endured as a linebacker at the University of Southern California caused him to develop CTE — and that CTE ultimately led to his premature death at only 49 years old. The plaintiff in the case seeks a minimum of $1.8 million in damages from the NCAA for allegedly causing the death of Matthew Gee, a former linebacker for USC. Alana Gee, Matthew’s widow and the plaintiff in the case, also asked that the defendant, NCAA, return all the funds the organization earned due to its negligence. If Gee wins, the court could force the defendant to pay $100 million or more in addition to the $1.8 million in damages.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit or 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.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Case Results in $8.1M Settlement

In recent news, a woman who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury after being sideswiped at a stoplight by a negligent driver received an $8.1 million verdict.

The Case: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: BCV-19-101566-JEB

The Plaintiff: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

In 2017, the plaintiffs (two Rosamond, California residents) drove their Ford Flex in their local area. Another driver ran a red light and t-boned the plaintiff during a left-hand turn. In the time leading up to the trial, the plaintiff repeatedly requested that State Farm, the defendant's insurance carrier, pay the defendant's $100,000 policy limits. However, State Farm refused. After years of litigation, just two months before trial, State Farm offered just $30,000 to settle the mild traumatic brain injury case.

The Defendant: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

During litigation and throughout the trial, State Farm's attorneys attempted to minimize the severity of the incident, arguing that, at most, the plaintiff suffered a concussion that should have been resolved within months. Still, the jury also heard testimony from the plaintiff and physicians claiming that significant residual problems resulted from the car crash requiring substantial future medical treatment.

The Case: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

The car accident victim in the Bakersfield case first (and repeatedly) attempted to get State Farm to agree to pay out the defendant's $100,000 policy limits. When State Farm refused to do so throughout the years of litigation, the case went to trial. After hearing the case details and considering testimony defending both parties' arguments, the Bakersfield jury awarded the car accident victim $8.1 million for mild traumatic brain injury. The jury verdict includes $5,243,725.04 in future medical expenses, along with $250,000 in past non-economic losses, and $1,600,000 in future non-economic losses. It also includes $1 million in damages awarded to the car accident victim's husband.

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

$480,000 Settlement Approved for Inmate After Jail Staff Stops at Starbucks En Route to Hospital

Recently, an Orange County inmate’s wrongful death lawsuit received approval for a $480,000 settlement.

The Case: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

The Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California

The Case No.: 20-56177

The Plaintiff: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

When the plaintiff in the case, Sandra Quinones, was an inmate of Orange County she was six months pregnant. She was in the midst of a 70-day sentence for violating probation in Central Jail in Orange County, California. In March 2016, her water broke. According to court documents, she allegedly pushed the call button in her cell for help repeatedly. Jail staff responded two hours later. According to Quinones, when staff responded, they transported her to the hospital on a “non-emergency” status and even stopped at Starbucks en route. When the transport arrived at the hospital, Quinones was admitted, and she gave birth, but the baby died. Quinones later filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Defendant: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

The defendant in the case, Orange County, faced allegations that their training policies to prepare staff to deal with the medical needs of inmates were not suitable and that Quinones’s experience resulted in “severe and extreme” post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Quinones has been homeless since the incident. The plaintiff claims her residential status and her inability to function and care for herself and her affairs since the incident resulted from a combination of mental impairments and the severe emotional harm she experienced.

Details of the Case: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

Orange County initially argued that Quinone’s federal lawsuit be thrown out based on the statute of limitations. In October 2020, the case was dismissed when a district judge agreed with the defendant, but an appeals court reversed that ruling in December, sending the case back to the lower level of the justice system. In August 2022, parties in the case received approval for a $480,000 settlement to resolve the matter.

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.

Glenhaven Healthcare Requests the Supreme Court Consider PREP Act Case

Will the U.S. Supreme Court decide to hear a nursing home Covid-19 wrongful death case involving the PREP Act as requested by Glenhaven Healthcare? If so, this could be the first time the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the federal statute.

The Case: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-56194

The Plaintiff: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

Ricardo Saldana, the listed plaintiff in the case, died from COVID-19 at a Glenhaven nursing home. Saldana's relatives sued the facility in California state court in May 2020, citing wrongful death. The family alleges that the nursing home facility did not provide its employees with appropriate protective equipment. They also claim the facility did not identify and isolate workers and residents with COVID-19 (or suspected COVID-19 exposure) before others in the facility were exposed. The defendant, Glenhaven, removed the case to federal court, but the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California disagreed with the defendant's arguments. The case was sent back to state court in October 2020.

The Defendant: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

The defendant in the case, Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC, is a California-based nursing home operator. In late August 2022, Glenhaven Healthcare asked the Supreme Court to consider taking the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to keep the case in state court. Glenhaven argues that the claims in Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC are preempted by the federal PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness), so the case should continue in federal court. Similar cases have popped up all across the country. And while some have made it to the federal appeals court, there have yet to be any federal rulings that the PREP Act supersedes state law actions.

Details of the Case: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

The PREP Act provides immunity from suit if the HHS Secretary determines that a threat to health constitutes a public health emergency. Still, it also provides an exception for an exclusive federal cause of action for willful misconduct. A March 2020 declaration under the Act provided "liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19." The PREP Act was initially designed in 2005 to ensure that the concern or threat of litigation would not prevent the private sector or other necessary entities from developing and administering essential countermeasures. According to court documents, Glenhaven claims they complied with mandatory directives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could be the first time they issue a federal ruling regarding these arguments.

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.

Federal Judge Throws Out the $85M Wrongful Death Award

In recent news, a federal judge threw out the $85 million wrongful death lawsuit award over a Southern California man's death while in the custody of Sheriff's deputies in 2015.

The Case: K.J.P., a minor, and K.P.P., a minor, individually, by, and through their mother, LOAN THI MINH NGUYEN, who also sues individually and as successor in interest to her now deceased husband, Lucky Phounsy v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

The Court: U.S. District Court of Southern District of California

The Case No.: 15-cv-2692-H-MDD

The Plaintiff: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

The plaintiff in the case is Lucky Phounsy's family. Lucky was a 32-year-old Santee, California resident who died after an April 13, 2015 incident involving the San Deigo Sheriff's Department and some local deputies. Lucky's family claims his death was caused by law enforcement, who tased, beat, and hogtied him during the encounter. During his son's 2nd birthday party, Phounsy called 911 amidst a mental crisis and reported unknown assailants were attempting to hurt him. Lucky's family recalls the Sheriff's deputies who responded to the call as confrontational, aggressive, and profane. While law enforcement officers on the scene tried to handcuff Lucky, he allegedly became frightened and confused about the situation. Law enforcement tased, beat, and then hogtied Lucky, eventually strapping him to a gurney tightly and transferring him into an ambulance (without being untied). The former Sheriff's deputy who rode with Phounsy to the hospital allegedly put a spit-sock over Phounsy's face and pushed his head and torso down until Phounsy went into cardiac arrest. Due to the spit-sock, paramedics could not offer Lucky oxygen or appropriately monitor his condition. Before arriving at the hospital, Phounsy fell into a coma. After a few days at the local hospital, Lucky Phounsy died. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriff's department, and the first trial in 2021 resulted in a hung jury. After further litigation, a March 2022 jury trial resulted in an $85 million award for the family of Lucky Phounsy - the largest settlement ever seen in this type of case.

The Defendant: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

Defendants claim that the two responding deputies called for backup units "while they were being assaulted and injured by Phounsy." The two deputies were allegedly injured in the altercation (one with severe injuries). After the incident, the Sheriff's Department cleared the deputies involved of wrongdoing and claimed that Phounsy died of a drug overdose combined with extreme exertion. These claims were not supported by evidence.

Details of the Case: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

Previously, in March 2022, a California jury found that the San Diego County sheriff's deputies used excessive force in a 2015 incident. However, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff found that the March award by a federal jury in the civil rights lawsuit brought by Lucky Phounsy's family against San Diego County wasn't supported by trial evidence. At the time it was awarded, the $85 million award was the nation's largest civil rights award for a custody death in history. According to the judge, the amount was "far out of proportion to the evidence," which could indicate that the jury impermissibly included in the award a measure of the plaintiffs' emotional distress or intended some portion as a punishment for the defendants. The judge did not order a new trial and upheld findings of excessive force and negligence. However, a new trial will be necessary to determine a new award amount.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Conso’s Lawsuit Claims Excessive Force During 2020 Protest Citing History of Incidences

Molly Conso filed a federal lawsuit against the county of Humboldt and the city of Eureka, claiming officers used excessive force when they shot her with non-lethal projectiles during a peaceful protest in May 2020.

The Case: Conso v. City of Eureka

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 21-cv-04480-RMI

The Plaintiff: Conso v. City of Eureka

During a protest of the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the plaintiff, Molly Conso, claims the officers' use of non-lethal projectiles constituted excessive force. Conso filed the lawsuit in June 2021, seeking unspecified damages for physical pain and emotional distress. The plaintiff claims she peacefully marched alongside other protestors marching arm-in-arm on May 31, 2020 when police officers suddenly (and without warning) shot pepper balls into the crowd. Conso claims the projectiles caused her to suffer injuries to the head, including a concussion, post-concussive syndrome, bruising, chemical burns, hearing impairment, and emotional distress. According to protestors on the scene, there was no warning or verbal demands to disperse.

The Defendant: Conso v. City of Eureka

EPD Capt. Brian Stephens, an officer on the scene, released a response after the incident in which he stated that throughout the day, amidst the protest, acts of vandalism were perpetrated, and upon identifying the instigator of the vandalism, the Sherriff's office moved to make an arrest. However, according to the officer, the crowd turned unruly when police took the suspect into custody. When the situation escalated to members of the crowd attempting to remove the suspect from police custody forcibly, police determined escalating circumstances and safety risks to officers on the scene constituted the use of pepper balls (projectiles filled with powdered pepper spray). The police opened fire on the crowd with paintball guns filled with non-lethal projectiles. The officer then described how officers stayed on the scene, attempting to de-escalate the situation and provide needed medical treatment.

Details of the Case: Conso v. City of Eureka

In regards to the claims of excessive force used by the County and City when an individual allegedly does not pose an imminent threat of harm during a pursuit, the plaintiff cited three cases that indicated a pattern:

1. During a 1997 protest, police officers reportedly "swabbed pepper spray in the eyes of eight activists practicing nonviolent resistance." The action was later allegedly found to constitute excessive force.

2. Another allegation of excessive force resulted in a wrongful death action where a man died in the custody of Eureka police officers. This claim was settled before trial.

3. The reported denial of qualified immunity for the sheriff and chief deputy sheriff was connected to a matter involving "repeated use of [pepper] spray" and "refusal to wash out the protestors' eyes" (constituted excessive force), which the sheriff and his chief deputy had explicitly authorized.

The court found that Plaintiff correctly pleaded her case against the Doe Defendants she claims unjustifiably struck her with projectiles during the allegedly peaceful public protest. But her attempts to include the City, the County, Chief Watson, and Sheriff Honsal in the case and project her case into other various molds were not well argued or well founded. Instead of pleading concrete factual assertions about training programs, supervisory practices, or municipal policies, practices, or customs, the plaintiff veers toward conclusory argumentative statements without including the necessary factual development. Both motions to dismiss were granted based on the lack of factual development in these areas. The City, the County, Sheriff Honsal, Chief Watson, and the Doe Defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit to the following extent: the case remains active only as to the Doe Defendants for Claims 1 and 2 (unreasonable search and seizure - excessive force and violation of the First Amendment). Claim 3 (municipal liability for unconstitutional customs or policies) is dismissed. Claim 4 remains active. Claim 5 (negligence) remains active only as to the Doe Defendants. Claim 6 (assault and battery) is dismissed. Claim 7 (violation of the Bane Act) remains active. And Claim 8 (intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed.

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

Zero Motorcycles Settles Wage and Hour Claims with $425K Class Action Settlement

To resolve wage and hour claims that the company failed to provide workers with proper wages, Zero Motorcycles agreed to pay a $425,000 settlement.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Cruz

The Case No.: 19-CV-03725

The Plaintiff: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are employees of Zero Motorcycles. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the company violated California law by failing to calculate correct regular pay rates and forcing employees to perform off-the-clock work. Allegedly, these labor law violations resulted in the company paying their employees less than minimum wage and inaccurate overtime wages. The plaintiffs also claim that the company denied them rest and meal breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, separation wages, and related penalties (all of which constitute labor law violations).

The Defendant: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The defendant in the case, Zero Motorcycles, manufactures and sells various motorcycles. The models they offer vary from street bikes to dual sport bikes. According to Zero Motorcycle's website, the California-based company specializes in high-performance electric technology. However, in the plaintiff's class action lawsuit, the company is accused of failing to pay its employees properly.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The wage-and-hour class action lawsuit, Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc., listed several alleged labor law violations: paying their employees less than minimum wage, paying inaccurate overtime wages, denying employees their rest and meal breaks, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to offer separation wages promptly, etc. The class action also included claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Zero Motorcycles did not admit to any wrongdoing, but they did agree to pay the $425,000 settlement to resolve the alleged California labor law violations. The wage and hour settlement benefits those who worked for Zero Motorcycles in California between Dec. 16th, 2015, and June 13th, 2021. The settlement terms allow class members to collect a payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period, so workers who completed a more significant number of workweeks during the class period will be eligible for a higher settlement payment. The proposed settlement agreement also includes a $30,000 payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency for PAGA violations. The court scheduled a final approval hearing for the settlement for July 26th, 2022.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.