Poole Shaffery Wins

Multiple Poole Shaffery attorneys have been on a role with recent victories for their clients in the month of August that included: (1) an unanimous defense verdict in a 6-day trial where the plaintiff sought an award of $5.3 million; (2) a motion for Summary Judgment dismissing a case before trial; and (3) a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings – a dismissal of a case during the initial stages of litigation.

Azam vs. Crest Beverages - Unanimous Defense Verdict:

Congratulations to Jeff Soll and Jason Benkner of Poole Shaffery who on August 21, 2024, in San Diego, received a 12-0 defense verdict in an auto vs. tractor trailer accident after a 6-day trial and one hour jury deliberation. Plaintiff was represented by the Law Offices of Salim Khawaja, APC. The case was presided over by Judge Wendy Behan.

Defendant Sean Stone was driving a tractor trailer for Crest Beverage, LLC and came to a stop at a red light. He intended to make a right on red. At the limit line, the view is obstructed to the left, so he had to creep forward. He did not see any vehicle to the left and made his right turn, and was nearly fully established in his lane, when plaintiff Mohammad Azam struck the back rear axle of the truck.

Plaintiff had a green light, claimed he had the right-of-way, and that plaintiff was close enough that Mr. Stone should have seen his vehicle before turning. The defense put forth evidence that at the time Mr. Stone looked to the left right before initiating his turn, Mr. Azam was over 400 feet away, and that Mr. Azam’s vehicle was not visible and was so far away as not to constitute an immediate hazard.

Prior to trial, the defense made a CCP 998 offer of $200,000.00 which was rejected. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award his clients $5.35 million.

Mangin vs. Marathon Petroleum - Motion for Judgment on Pleadings:

Congratulations to attorney Sarah Antony! On August 22, 2024, the court granted our client’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP) which resulted in the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff was injured while acting within the course and scope of his employment for our client. We filed the MJOP on California’s workers’ compensation exclusive remedy and addressed that none of the exceptions to the exclusive remedy applied. Among other things, the plaintiff argued that based upon the facts of the case our client allegedly concealed unsafe conditions at the job site which caused the plaintiff’s injury. We established that all of plaintiff’s allegations did not fall within any of the exceptions to the exclusive remedy by way of a thorough analysis of all the exceptions to the exclusive remedy. The court agreed that the Plaintiff failed to allege any facts or cause of action to support any of the exceptions and granted the MJOP without leave to amend. Therefore, Judgment was entered in our client’s favor and against Plaintiff.

Kay vs. United Site Services- Motion for Summary Judgment

Congratulations to attorney Tim Ruiz!On August 9, 2024, the court granted our client’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Our client supplied temporary fencing to a construction site wherein sandbags were placed up against the fence to prevent the fences from being blown by the wind. The plaintiff alleges that while walking by the area she tripped over one of the sandbags causing injuries. During Plaintiff’s deposition, we elicited favorable testimony that supported the filing of the MSJ. The MSJ was brought on two grounds. The first ground was that the sandbags were open and obvious and therefore there was no duty to warn plaintiff as a matter of law. In this regard, plaintiff testified that she was aware that there was a construction site adjacent to where she was walking and observed the fencing next to her as she walked. The second ground was that the plaintiff could not establish a triable issue of fact that she tripped over a sandbag. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified she did not know what she tripped over and that after a few minutes sitting down she looked in the area and presumed she fell over the sandbag as it was the only thing that made sense to her. The court granted the MSJ on both theories that (1) the sandbag was open and obvious as a matter of law and therefore there was no duty to warn; and (2) plaintiff did not put forth a triable issue of fact as to the sandbag caused her to fall as her mere speculation of what may have occurred after the fact was insufficient. Therefore, Judgment was entered in our client’s favor and against Plaintiff.