Cases
Case Results: Obtained summary judgment in favor of an insurance broker sued for negligent supervision of two independent insurance agents. Plaintiff was 75 years old
alleged the insurance agents fraudulently or negligently sold her a retirement annuity
life insurance policy that she didn't need. The Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment one month before trial. Ghio v. 4T's, December 2017. Yavapai County Superior Court.
Obtained a directed verdict in favor of Defendant Shah, the homeowner, after a two week jury trial. Plaintiff, a 33 year old stucco worker, fell off a scaffold
shattered both heels. He sued the homeowner for negligence. The Trial Judge granted Defendant Shah's Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
the jury was excused. Calderon v. Shah, November 2015. Maricopa County Superior Court.
Defeated plaintiff's attempt to limit exposure to the value of the vessel in maritime case. Boat capsized in high winds at Lake Powell. The decedents' estates sued the rental company (Aramark) who rented the speedboat in bad weather. The weather forecast included a high wind advisory which Aramark failed to share with the renters. One hour after the renters left the marina, Aramark stopped renting boats for the day. The boat capsized in rough water
four passengers drowned. Aramark denied liability but pursuant to Maritime law argued their liability was limited to the value of the vessel which was less than $10,000. On behalf of the Brady's, we successfully defeated Aramark's attempt to limit its exposure to the value of the vessel. In re Aramark vs. the Estates
Brady, April 2014. U.S. District Court for the State of Utah.
Defended homeowner sued for wrongful death after a 5-year old guest who drowned in homeowner's backyard pool. Parents claimed the homeowners were negligent for failing to designate or hire a water watcher,
were therefore responsible for their son's drowning. As hosts, the Acosta's argued they acted as a reasonably careful homeowner should under all the facts
circumstances. The jury found in favor of the homeowners
against the Plaintiff. Johnson v. Acosta . Maricopa County Superior Court.
Obtained unanimous jury verdict in favor of defense in highly-contested civil assault trial. While attending a Coyotes game on Valentine's Day 2009, our client, Defendant Clemett, his wife
their friends, were harassed by another fan throughout the game. The harassment became more obscene
vulgar as the game progressed. The Plaintiff proceeded to confront our client, his wife
friends - who were seated 25 feet away
two rows down - verbally threatening their lives
spitting on our client's wife. Defendant Clemett took action in defense of his wife
others nearby, hitting the Plaintiff as he continued to make threats. We argued that Defendant Clemett acted reasonably under the circumstances
blamed the Plaintiff for starting the altercation. Further, we then argued that the Plaintiff was intoxicated, assumed the risk of injury,
was a bully. Plaintiff alleged multiple injuries
loss of wages in the subsequent years. It became apparent, however, that these allegations were all but falsified
in fact the Plaintiff's medical
employment problems began long before Valentine's Day 2009. Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award Plaintiff $3.13 million. Defendants argued that Plaintiff started the fight
was therefore 100% responsible for any
all injuries. In the alternative, Defendants argued Plaintiff was at least 70% at fault, Defendants were each 10% at fault,
the facility was 10% at fault for not ejecting the Plaintiff earlier in the game. After approximately 1 hour
15 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendants. Franklin v. Clemett, et al, October 2014. Maricopa County Superior Court.
Selected as a Top Ten Defense Verdict of 2014 by Arizona Attorney Magazine.
Obtained summary judgment in matter involving wrongful death. When returning from a sales appointment, the real estate agent's car crossed the center line
struck Santorii's tractor-trailer, killing both men. Santorii's wife brought a wrongful death lawsuit against MartinezRusso, alleging that the real estate broker was vicariously liable for the agent's negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the broker because (1) Arizona's real estate statutes do not create an employer-employee relationship between brokers
agents
(2) the same statutes do not impose upon the broker a non-delegable duty to supervise an agent's driving
(3) based on the undisputed facts, the agents was an independent contractor of the broker. Santorii v. MartinezRusso, August 2016. Maricopa County Superior Court.
