Employment Law

James Anton, Joshua Dale, and Joseph Su from the Orange office had a demurrer to a complaint granted without leave to amend in a wrongful termination case in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff was terminated by a previous employer and was subsequently employed by the client. When plaintiff's former employer threatened litigation against the client for employing plaintiff in violation of an undisclosed non-compete agreement plaintiff signed with the former employer, the client terminated plaintiff to avoid litigation. Plaintiff sued both her former employer and the client, alleging gender and age discrimination claims. The court found that plaintiff's claims against the client were unrelated to the former employer's discrimination and the client could not be tied to the former employer's discrimination. The court also rejected an amended complaint that alleged the client conspired with the former employer to restrain trade by honoring the non-compete agreement.

Construction Litigation

The Orange County General Litigation department started off 2009 by securing favorable rulings on two separate Motions for Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment is a mechanism whereby a court can find that a plaintiff's case has no merit and enter judgment for a defendant prior to trial. Because a favorable ruling for a defendant effectively deprives a plaintiff from his or her "day in court," courts are generally reluctant to grant these motions unless there is no possibility that a plaintiff can prevail under any applicable theory of recovery.

In one case, the firm represented a framing subcontractor in a construction defect action involving a multi-million dollar single-family residence in Newport Coast. The plaintiff homeowners settled with the developer of the home and took an assignment of the developer's indemnity rights against the subcontractors, including WFB&M's client. The indemnity agreement in question allowed the developer to recover from the subcontractor for any claims which arose out of its work, even if the subcontractor was not at fault. After the assignment, the plaintiffs sought to enforce this provision against the firm's client for claims which allegedly related to the framing work that was performed at the residence.

In moving for Summary Judgment as to these assigned claims, WFB&M argued that the plaintiffs could not assert these claims because the developer did not suffer any damages, citing Bramalea v. Reliable Interiors (2004). As the prior settlement with the developer had been funded entirely by its insurer and it did not suffer any out-of-pocket damages, the developer could not assign its contractual indemnity rights to the plaintiffs because damages are a necessary element of any contract claim. The court agreed and granted summary judgment as to these assigned claims. The motion was written by David Van Dam and Jennifer Morin and argued by Sage R. Knauft.

In the second case, WFB&M represented a manufacturer of industrial coatings that were used on a large commercial project in the Inland Empire. The subcontractor who had been hired to apply the coatings did not prepare the surfaces correctly which caused the coatings to peel off the steel. The coatings had to be replaced by the project's general contractor and a lawsuit ensued. Although the coatings were not defective, the general contractor sought to hold WFB&M's client liable for a portion of the cost of repainting the steel, arguing that the client should have advised the applicator how to properly apply the coatings.

WFB&M moved for summary judgment, arguing that the client did not have a legal duty to the general contractor and that its alleged failure to provide application advice was not the cause of the plaintiff's damages. Since the coatings had been sold through a local distributor, the client did not have any contractual obligations to the applicator or to the general contractor. Moreover, because the client was never asked to provide any advice to the applicator, the court found that the client's connection to the project was too tenuous to impose any liability and judgment was entered in favor of WFB&M's client. The successful motion was prepared by Jennifer Morin and argued by Sage R. Knauft.

David Van Dam and Jennifer Morin of the Orange office had a motion for summary adjudication granted (known in other states as a partial summary judgment) which eliminated causes of action for negligence and strict liability for the firm's client, a general contractor. The client served as general contractor in the construction of a gas station. The plaintiff station owner sued the client, along with the installer and piping manufacturer of the fueling system for the unleaded gasoline dispensers, claiming damages for costs to replace and rebuild the system and lost profits suffered during the repair process. The plaintiff claimed that the firm's client purchased and directed installation of the incorrect type of fuel piping which later failed due to alleged design defects and installation deficiencies.

The motion was based on the economic loss rule, which limits recovery of damages for repair costs and lost profits (i.e. purely economic loss) to contract-based claims, unless the plaintiff can show the defective product or faulty installation caused physical damage to property other than the piping itself. After extensive oral argument, the Court granted the motion as to both causes of action and ruled in the client's favor on the two key issues: 1) the economic loss rule applies to this case; and 2) plaintiff failed to show evidence that any property other than the piping itself was in any way damaged, barring plaintiff's claims for negligence and strict liability.

Toxic Tort Litigation

WFB&M attorneys won a motion for summary judgment for a client in an asbestos case venued in San Francisco Superior Court. This was a personal injury case involving a plaintiff with mesothelioma, a cancer often associated with asbestos exposure. Plaintiff claimed exposure to the client's products during employment as an apprentice insulator and as an electrician at a California shipyard. Plaintiff also claimed "para-occupational" exposure, also known as "take-home" exposure, meaning exposure through someone else's employment. In this case, plaintiff claimed exposure from asbestos fibers brought home on his father's and brother's work clothes. The father and brother both worked at California shipyards through the 1950's and 1960's. The client's MSJ was brought on the grounds that the client's product was not the cause of plaintiff's injury, and the court agreed. The successful motion was argued by Robert Channel.

back to top | Volume 8, Issue 2 Index