In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses rights and limitations in filing a lawsuit against another party. Ganci explores several recent judgments to address this.

In Braugh v. Dow, 2023 WL 4312617, he discusses California law as it pertains to the following question:

• Can you personally serve the summons and complaint if you are a party to the lawsuit?

Touching on another recent case, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 2023 WL 4360826, Ganci discusses California law as it pertains to the rights and restrictions of family members to file lawsuits against an individual's employer. He presents two issues:

• If any employee contracts COVID 19 and brings it home to their spouse, does California law bar the spouse' s negligence claim against the employer?
• Does an employer owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID 19 to employees' households?

Listen to learn more:

Braugh v. Dow, 2023 WL 4312617 

Wong v. Stillwater Insurance Company (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 908 

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 2023 WL 4360826 

Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School District, 2023 WL 4308622

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses how the law determines if punitive damages are excessive.

If a person has acted negligently or improperly and has harmed someone else as a result, California law sometimes allows the plaintiff to seek punitive damages in addition to compensation. Delving into the recent 2022 case, Doe v. Lee, Ganci explores when a verdict for punitive damages is excessive in the eyes of the law. The law provides three factors to determine if a verdict is excessive:

1. The reprehensibility of the defendant's action.
2. The harm suffered by the plaintiff in correlation to the punitive damages sought.

The wealth of the defendant. Doe v. Lee (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 612
Simonyan v. Nationwide (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 889
Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 573 
California Code of Civil Procedure 2860 
California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b), Comment 4 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

Villanueva v. California (2021) 986 F.3d 1158 

In this week's podcast, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci explores the growing number of police shootings and use of deadly force, raising questions about if police are protected under the law, focusing on Qualified Immunity and how, and if it protects law enforcement in cases of deadly shootings. 

Villanueva was involved in a car chase and was stopped by police officers. The officers immediately exited their vehicles and pulled out their firearms. 

Villanueva attempted to reverse his car, at which the officers opened fire on the vehicle. The shots killed Villanueva and injured his passenger. 

The law presented here explores the 4th amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures. 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 694

This podcast discusses the case, Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2020) to address the question: What happens when you file your trial papers, show up for your day in court and get hit with a curve ball? The judge presents a new item that you were not aware of, an issue that no party raised and shouldn't need to be decided on that court date and expects you to address it.

Learn more about Eric Ganci

Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 614 

CSAA Insurance Exchange v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 272 

This case decision is a technical one. Specifically on 998 those offers must be drafted to be accepted. 

First, what is a 998 Offer? A CCP998 offer is one made before a case goes to trial to settle at a certain amount. If a 998 is offered but not accepted, it sets the bar for what a verdict must be over or under at trial. 

When a defendant provides a 998 offer to the plaintiff. The written offer must include a provision for the opposing team to accept, for it to be accepted.

In this case, the defendant's offer did not specify how the plaintiff team should be accepted. 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

Covert v. FCA USA, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 821 

Segal v. ASICS (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651  

Timing is crucial in serving a demand to settle against another party in a civil lawsuit. Firstly, is there an advantage for plaintiff to offer defendant a settlement offer? The answer is - yes...if the timing is right.

In this podcast, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses the importance of timing in filing a demand to settle, touching on the recent decision in Covert v. FCA USA, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 821 to provide insight on when to serve a demand. 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this introductory episode, CaseyGerry trial attorney, Eric Ganci talks about his work at the firm and gives an overview of what the listeners can expect from this podcast. Welcome to CGLaw Pod!

Learn more about Eric Ganci

If you injure yourself while jogging on someone's property, is the property owner liable for negligence?

In this installment, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci explores this question referencing a recent judgement in  Rucker v. WINCAL, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 883. 

According to the California civil code 846 (A) - "An owner owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry others for entry or use for any recreational purpose, or to give warning of hazardous conditions to persons entering for recreational purposes. However, exceptions apply."

The question remains - How is recreational purposes defined in this context?

Rucker v. WINCAL, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 883 

Kaney v. Mazza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 201 

Finlan v. Chase (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 934 

Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 280  

Shalabi v. Fontana (2021) 11 Cal.5th 842 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this installment of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses depositions and how a 2022 decision influences how depositions can be used if a party is unavailable for trial. 

Using the recent 2022 decision in Berroteran II v. Superior Court, Ganci examines the question - can a prior deposition be used as evidence if a party is unavailable for trial.

Prior deposition transcripts, otherwise heresay, can be admissible as evidence if the following criteria are met:

1. The party is unavailable.
2. The opposing party was party to a prior litigation.
3. The opposing party had opportunity to cross-examine with a similar motive and interest. 

Learn more about Eric Ganci