Below, we list some examples of favorable outcomes by Joe Andrews or Barbara Hensleigh. The cases listed below are examples only and do not represent any opinion as to the likely outcome of any other cases. Every case is different. The outcome of each case hinges on the facts of that particular case.
Examples of Outcomes at the Trial Court Level
Business Litigation, Business Fraud, and Other Business Torts
Nam v. Commerce Associates. In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse for fraud and misrepresentation in the sale of a shopping center, after an 18-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of approximately $2.2 million for our clients, the purchasers of the shopping center. (Joe Andrews tried the case with his partner at the time, Chris Kim.)
CVPMG v. Lai. In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse for breach of partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, we obtained a settlement for our client of $225,000 before trial.
Knead the Dough v. Pizza Systems, Inc. In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse for fraud in the sale of a pizza franchise, after a 12-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our clients of $625,000 plus costs.
Insurance, Insurance Litigation, and Insurance Bad Faith
Matesky v. Ins. Group. In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse for breach of insurance contract and bad faith, the Defendant settled for a confidential amount four days into a jury trial.
Legal (Attorney) Malpractice
Wegricht v. Mackenzie. In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse for an attorney's breach of fiduciary duty, after a 6-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our client of $310,000 in compensatory damages (later reduced by the court to $115,000) and $150,000 in punitive damages.
Personal Injury
Han v. SCRTD (MTA). In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse against the MTA for a Bus Striking a Volkswagen, after an 11-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for $1.2 million for our client (reduced to $909,000 plus costs based on comparative fault). (Joe Andrews tried the case with his partner at the time, Chris Kim.)
Katz v. Defillipps. In this lawsuit in the Santa Monica courthouse against a car driver who hit a bicycle rider, after a 4- day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our client of $91,000 (later reduced to $82,000 based on comparative fault).
Products Liability and Unsafe Products
Cross v. Aspen Pet Products, Inc. In this lawsuit in the Beverly Hills courthouse for a defectively designed pinch or prong dog collar that caused a partial finger amputation, after a 5-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our client of $68,706 (later reduced to $17,176 based on comparative fault).
Real Estate and Construction
Robinson v. Webb. In this lawsuit in the Central Los Angeles courthouse to quiet title to real property and for damages, after a 12-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our client, quieting title in our client and awarding damages to our client of $52,580.
Sharif v. Wilmington Community Clinic. In this lawsuit in the San Pedro courthouse against our client for a prescriptive easement, after a court trial, we defeated the claim for a prescriptive easement and prevailed on our client's claims to quiet title and to recover damages for trespass.
Huggins v. Nordic Development.
In this lawsuit in the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse for the defective construction of tract housing, after a 37-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our clients for $120,000 plus costs.
Toxic Torts, Toxic Exposure and Hazardous Substances
Evans v. Select Products. In this lawsuit in the San Bernardino courthouse against the distributor of garage floor coatings that contributed to the cancer and the deaths of three mechanics, after a 33-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for our clients of $6.9 million (later reduced based on comparative fault and off-sets for pre-trial settlements to approximately $3.3 million).
Examples of Outcomes Before
the Appellate Courts
We represent our clients through the entire litigation process. When appropriate, that representation includes pursuing an appeal, or seeking a writ, before a higher court. When the appellate court issues a published opinion, that opinion not only decides our client's case, but also shapes the law of California or of the United States. Below are examples of published decisions in cases handled by our attorneys:
Business Litigation, Business Fraud, and Other Business Torts
Wisden v. Sims (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 720. This case holds that a party is entitled to a trial by jury on a claim for fraudulent conveyance of a determinate sum of money.
False Claims Act (Qui Tam) and Whistleblower Protection
Moore v. California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory (2002, 9th Cir.) 275 F.2d 838. This case holds that retaliation under the federal Whistleblower Protection statutes includes any conduct that an employee would reasonably view as retaliation for whistleblower activity.
Health Care and Medical Antitrust
County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Community Hospital (9th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d 1148. This case holds that a hospital did not violate the antitrust laws by refusing to grant c-section privileges to Family Physicians competent by experience and training to perform c-sections. We believe that this decision errs in allowing OBs to exclude Family Practitioners from performing c-sections to protect the OB's economic interests.
Insurance, Insurance Litigation, and Insurance Bad Faith
Watts v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1246. This case holds that an insurance company must consider the rights of each spouse individually; it cannot impute the wrongful acts of one spouse to another.
Legal (Attorney) Malpractice
Kane, Kane & Kritzer v. Altagen (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 36. This case holds that an attorney's duty to her or his client is determined by the scope of the agreement between the attorney and the client.
Featherson v. Farwell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1022 (depublished). This case holds that an attorney does not owe a duty to an intended beneficiary of her or his client. We asked the California Supreme Court to review and reverse this decision because it is wrong on the law and facts; instead, the court ordered that the opinion not be published.
Personal Injury
Waschek v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 640. This case holds that an injured party cannot recover against the Department of Motor Vehicles for licensing a 96 year old man, without direct proof that the Department knew that the driver was unfit. Circumstantial evidence of the Department's knowledge is not enough. We asked the California Supreme Court to review and reverse this opinion, but it declined.
Toxic Torts, Toxic Exposure and Hazardous Substances
Evans v. Select Products Co. (2003) 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 (review granted). This case holds that the surviving children of a deceased father must pay Medi-Cal for their father's medical expenses, although the children cannot recover those medical expenses from the person who injured and killed their father. We petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. It granted review, but has not yet reached a decision on the merits.
###
