Proud Sponsor of the Childhelp Rich Saul Memorial Golf Classic 2026
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, Childhelp and their upcoming event on May 18th, the Rich Saul Memorial Golf Classic 2026.
Holiday Giving Initiative Supports Local Youth
This holiday season, our firm was proud to host a gift drive in partnership with the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). Attorneys and staff from our firm, along with employees from neighboring businesses at the Central Corporate Center, came together to support children and youth served through DPSS and the Harmony Haven Children & Youth Center.
Over the course of one week, participants generously donated a wide range of requested items, including clothing, footwear, personal care items, games, and other gifts selected specifically for youth in care.
We are grateful to everyone who participated and to DPSS for the opportunity to collaborate on this meaningful initiative.
Below is a short video showcasing this holiday partnership and the generosity that makes our community so special.
Read More
Holiday Cheers from Macdonald & Cody
This holiday season, Macdonald & Cody LLP celebrated with our annual firm gathering, bringing together team members to reflect on a year of hard work and shared successes. We are deeply grateful for our team and extend our best wishes for a bright and joyful holiday season.
Macdonald & Cody 2025 Annual Bowling Event
Macdonald & Cody, LLP enjoyed another fun-filled day at our annual bowling event! Team members and their families came together to share laughs, strike up some friendly competition, and build memories beyond the office. It was a wonderful chance to strengthen connections across our firm, celebrate the hard work of the past year, and simply enjoy time together.
Proud Sponsor of the WINE & WISHES Gala 2025
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to Make a Wish San Diego and their event on October 11th, the WINE & WISHES Gala 2025.
Downtown Jury Finds 50/50 Liability in Rear-end Accident Involving Truck
On May 30, 2025, Scott Macdonald and Michael Moon secured a favorable verdict in Downtown Los Angeles. Our client was an appliance delivery company. Plaintiff claimed that they were rear-ended on the freeway without warning. Defendant driver claimed that plaintiffs swerved into his lane and stopped rapidly, thereby cutting off our client’s stopping distance. The plaintiffs had a witness that claimed that defendant was tailgating a vehicle, so the witness backed off on her speed and lost sight of the truck. The witness then came upon the accident and called 911. The EDR from plaintiffs’ vehicle was harvested. This allegedly showed a lack of braking and any turning movement by plaintiffs’ vehicle within five seconds of the accident. We established that defendant’s story had never changed, but plaintiffs had provided versions of the accident which were both inconsistent between stories and inconsistent with the EDR as well. We argued that defendant’s version of the facts was consistent with the EDR from his perspective.
Plaintiff driver claimed the need for extensive pain management and a three level cervical surgery which was a fusion at C5-6 and disc replacements above and below the fusion. Plaintiff sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering. Plaintiff driver sought between $2,400,000 and $5,400,000 from the jury.
Plaintiff passenger claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and a thoracic outlet syndrome injury. She sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering. She sought between $790,000 and $1,900,000 from the jury.
The jury found both drivers were 50% at fault. The jury awarded past medical and future medical bills, and awarded the numbers we suggested for past and future pain and suffering. The total net verdict for plaintiffs was $659,000. The parties have agreed to resolve the case post-trial.
Read MoreProud Sponsor of the 18th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The American Board of Trial Advocates, Orange County Chapter and the upcoming event on May 19th, the 18th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic.
Proud Sponsor of the 8th Annual CRB Golf Tournament
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The Alabaster Jar Project and the upcoming event on May 9th, the 8th Annual CRB Golf Tournament.
Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case
Amy Akiyama and Megan K. Hawkins secured an appellate victory in a defamation case. On January 30, 2025, the California Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s Order granting Defendant’s anti-SLAPP Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and striking the Plaintiff’s operative complaint without leave to amend.
In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged: (1) Plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle which came into contact with a bicyclist in Defendant’s neighborhood; (2) Defendant witnessed the incident; (3) Plaintiff left the scene without exchanging information with the bicyclist; and (4) Defendant colluded with his neighbors to make misrepresentations about the incident to responding police officers.
Within a couple of days of being represented by counsel, Defendant brought an ex parte application for leave of the Trial Court to file an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (aka Anti-SLAPP) motion more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint. Defendant’s counsel argued that an anti-SLAPP motion had merit and that the purpose of an anti-SLAPP motion, i.e., early dismissal of a meritless lawsuit which threatens free speech, would be furthered by allowing such motion to proceed. The Trial Court agreed and granted leave to file the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Defendant then successfully obtained from the Trial Court an order striking the operative complaint, without leave to amend, pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP motion. The Trial Court agreed with Defendant that: (1) the litigation arises from protected communications that Defendant allegedly had with police officers; (2) Plaintiff was unable to meet her burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits in light of the litigation/official proceeding privilege codified in Civil Code action 47, which recognizes the importance in providing citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected unlawful activity; and (3) Plaintiff could not prove that any alleged communication was made with actual malice given that Plaintiff had no evidence that any statement was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s speculative opinion that Defendant colluded with his neighbors was not evidence. A judgment of dismissal was entered following the Trial Court’s granting of the anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff contended the Trial Court abused its discretion in allowing the Anti-SLAPP motion to be heard more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint and erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that evidence was provided to the Trial Court in support of Defendant’s ex parte application for leave to file the anti-SLAPP motion such that its decision to grant leave could not be deemed whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious. Defense Counsel further distinguished all of Plaintiff’s authorities which had been cited by Plaintiff in an attempt to show the Trial Court erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Read MoreChristmas Defense Verdict
On December 24, 2024, Scott Macdonald and Jorge Lopez Herrera secured a defense verdict in Van Nuys, California. Plaintiff was a tenant of our client. She claimed that a shower door failed and came off of its tracks. The door hit plaintiff in the head and caused her head to be pushed back into a wall. She fell to the floor and lost consciousness. She was found by a family member that had been staying with her. Plaintiff claimed that the shower door was dangerous and that defendant had been put on notice that the door was “dangerous” roughly six months before the incident and did not properly repair the door. Defendant denied that he had ever been put on notice of anything being wrong with the door and disputed that it was dangerous. It was established that the plaintiff used the shower door for six months and between 150-180 times after the alleged notice of the door being dangerous. We argued that no one could say why the door came off the track, and that defendant could not have been put on notice of a dangerous condition because no one could identify what the dangerous condition was.
Plaintiff claimed a traumatic brain injury and sought between $5,000,000 to $7,000,000 from the jury. Defendant conceded a minor concussion by history and sought to establish that any healing occurred immediately or very shortly thereafter.
The Jury deliberated and issued a defense verdict on liability. Post-Trial motions at the trial Court level were denied.
Read More