2025

Automobile Versus Pedestrian Significant Arm Laceration Case Results in Four-figure Verdict

Scott Macdonald and Alex Macdonald secured a favorable verdict in Torrance on December 22, 2025.

This was a disputed liability case. Our client was proceeding westbound down a narrow street with cars parked on both sides. There was a tow truck facing eastbound, double-parked next to parked cars on the south side of the street. Plaintiff was interacting with the tow truck driver, who was unloading his motorcycle from the truck bed. There were multiple conflicting accounts of what Plaintiff was doing at the time of the impact. Plaintiff claimed that he was in the street next to the tow truck facing southwest talking to the tow truck driver on the flat bed. A witness claimed that Plaintiff was facing southbound looking at the tow truck. Plaintiff’s two liability experts agreed that Plaintiff was facing westbound in the street, with his back to defendant’s vehicle. The investigating officer reported that Plaintiff was facing southbound and turned to walk northbound into defendant’s path of travel. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was standing on the steps of the tow truck cab and jumped off into his vehicle. It was undisputed that Plaintiff’s right elbow/triceps region contacted Mr. Pina’s windshield, resulting in a penetrating wound to that area.

At trial, Plaintiff made claims for a penetrating wound on his right triceps resulting in scars and disfigurement of his tattoos, lower back pain, 4 years of past noneconomic damages, and 40 years of future noneconomic damages. During the four and a half years from the date of the accident and trial, Plaintiff attended a total of<nine medical appointments for his injuries from July 30, 2021 (DOL) and May 26, 2022, including a gap in treatment from August 5, 2021 to February 3, 2022, when he went to see his attorney-referred plastic surgeon. The defense demonstrated that plaintiff traveled to Mexico, Greece, Turkey, Australia, Switzerland, Italy, New Zealand, Cuba, Canada, Austria, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., New Mexico, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and other places from as soon as 17 days after the accident until a few months before trial.  Plaintiff, a self-proclaimed amateur bodybuilder, also claimed that he was unable to compete in a men’s physique competition.

During closing, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $5,000 in past meds, $6,000-$12,000 in future meds, $75,000-$95,000 for four years of past noneconomic damages, and $850,000-$950,000 for 40 years of future noneconomic damages, totaling $936,000-1,062,000. The jury came back with an award of $13,000 and 60% comparative fault on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the $50,000 policy was open and did not accept prior counsel’s 998 offer for the policy limit back in August 2025.

Parking Lot Slip and Fall Results in Broken Ankle

Scott Macdonald and Eric Macdonald secured a jury verdict in an alleged dangerous condition case in Orange County on July 29, 2025. Our clients owned a strip mall which included parking in front of businesses. Plaintiff had been working at a bar on the night in question and was headed to another bar at our client’s property when the incident occurred. She stepped out of her vehicle and rolled her ankle in a pothole in the asphalt.  She broke her ankle but did not seek any immediate medical treatment. She eventually presented to the hospital and was put into a cast. Subsequent medical visits and therapy allegedly did not cure the pain. At trial, it was argued that defendants should have known of the dangerous condition. Defendants argued that the pothole was open and obvious.  Plaintiff sought nearly a million dollars in lifetime pain and suffering and waived all economic loss. The jury ultimately awarded $50,000 and put 40% comparative fault on plaintiff.

Defense Verdict in Auto Service Center Injury Trial

On June 25, 2025, Joseph Fitzgerald and Danielle Boyd secured a $600,000 jury verdict while representing the defense in a Los Angeles County trial involving an alleged foot crush injury at an auto service center. Plaintiff sought approximately $25 million in damages, alleging unsafe conditions and significant ongoing injuries. After trial, the jury allocated a portion of responsibility to the plaintiff.

The case was covered by Courtroom View Network (CVN).

Click the link to read more about the trial and verdict: $25M Lawsuit Over Auto Service Center Foot Crush Injury Ends In $600K Verdict

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.

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.