Elizabeth L. Huynh has extensive experience in product liability litigation, with an emphasis on asbestos litigation, and also practices employment law. Her experience includes defending an array of clients, including vehicle makers and dealerships; manufacturers of Navy equipment; manufacturers and suppliers of residential and commercial construction products; manufacturers and suppliers of component parts for aerospace applications; manufacturers and suppliers of personal healthcare products; and contractors under direct and premises owner theories of liability.
Elizabeth is versed in all phases of litigation, including trial, and has enjoyed great success in seeking dismissals, summary judgments, costs awards, and favorable settlements for her clients.
Prior to developing her civil litigation practice, Elizabeth served as a deputy district attorney, where she was recognized for her jury trial record. Particularly, she was recognized for taking the most cases to verdict during a designated time period.
- LaMonica v. Consumer Products Company – Secured a defense verdict for a worldwide consumer products company in a personal injury mesothelioma case alleging exposure from a personal care product allegedly tainted with asbestos and asbestos-containing joint compound products used on the job. After more than three months of trial, the jury returned a resounding 12-0 decision for our client.
- Handley vs. Alfa Laval, Inc. et al – Secured one of the first summary judgments that was ever granted in Los Angeles County under a non-original parts/replacement parts defense pursuant to the seminal case of Taylor vs. Elliott Turbomachinery Company. Elizabeth represented an equipment manufacturer, who was in the midst of trial in that instance.
- Kiener vs. Alfa Laval, Inc. et al – Secured a summary judgment for a trailer manufacturer client against dual plaintiffs, who were each claiming injuries from component parts purportedly affixed to client’s equipment.
- Ball vs. Astra Flooring Company, et al – Secured a summary judgment for a decking contractor client by dismantling the plaintiffs’ theory that client bears liability under an “Enterprise Theory of Liability.”
- Smith vs. Arnott Bennis, Inc., et al – Secured a summary judgment for a premises/contractor client by establishing that the client owed the plaintiff no duty to warn based on the factual circumstances of the case.
- Hill vs. Ameron International Corporation, et al – Successfully moved to strike prior deposition testimony that formed the crux of plaintiffs’ claims against a component part supplier client and thereafter obtained a dismissal for the client.
- Member, California Minority Counsel Program
Elizabeth was born and raised in Southern California and loves to spend time with her husband and their dog. She also enjoys interior design, container gardening, spinning, and practicing pilates and yoga.