CGLaw Pod

In this episode of Ganci Law Update, we delve into recent legal decisions that explore various aspects of law, from government immunity to duty and academic discipline:Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District: Individuals involved in a car crash into a government canal sued the irrigation district, claiming the water level posed a dangerous condition. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Water District, citing "canal immunity." The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that since their interaction with the canal was unintentional (they did not mean to crash their car into it), canal immunity should not apply to them.Kinney v. City of Corona: This case involves the City's refusal to disclose information related to a stolen vehicle investigation, citing confidentiality concerns. Despite not delving into the case's intricate details, it emphasizes the relevance of the case to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 998 offers. It highlights two crucial legal principles regarding CCP 998 offers: first, such offers are interpreted strictly in favor of the party being subjected to them, and second, any ambiguity in such offers is strictly interpreted against the party making the offer. These principles serve as important reminders regarding the application and interpretation of CCP 998 offers in legal proceedings.Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc.: In this case, a regional center placed a developmentally disabled individual in a residential facility. When the facility couldn't continue care, the individual injured an employee while awaiting relocation. The court ruled the regional center didn't have a duty to protect facility employees. This highlights the legal distinction between duties owed to consumers and others in their orbit.Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California: A tenured professor faced disciplinary action for sexual assault incidents occurring after his student's graduation ceremony. Despite his objections, the court upheld the university's decision, citing his inappropriate behavior and the ongoing jurisdiction over the student involved.For more information:Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District, cited as 98 Cal.App.5th 793Kinney v. City of Corona, cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 1 Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc., cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 139Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California, cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 513Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of Ganci Law Update, attorney Eric Ganci delves into three crucial legal cases:Stack v. City of Lemoore: Despite the plaintiff's prior safe use of the sidewalk, the court rejected the argument that individual familiarity with the area should affect the assessment of the dangerous condition. The court's decision delves into the legal complexities of premises liability, emphasizing the general foreseeability of harm over the plaintiff's specific history in determining liability.Nicoletti v. Kest: A resident slipped on a wet driveway during rain. Despite the plaintiff knowing the area well, the court ruled that the running rainwater was an obvious danger. This case highlights the significance of determining if a hazard is open and obvious, influencing the landowner's duty to provide warnings or address the condition.Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc.: A pivotal case addressing employee disability discrimination, where the court's decision included an award for attorney fees, subsequently reduced by 40%. This reduction was attributed to the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, highlighting the criticality of upholding professionalism in legal matters. The case serves as a significant reminder of the impact that decorum and civility have on the judicial process.For more information:Stack v. City of Lemoore, 91 Cal.App.5th 102Nicoletti v. Kest, 2023 WL 7521740. Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc., 2023 WL 7014096Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this Ganci Law Update episode, attorney Eric Ganci examines three pivotal legal cases:Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge, Inc. (2023): explore the complex question of whether bars owe a duty of safety to their patrons. While the answer to this question is often "it depends," this case provides insights into the bar's responsibility in ensuring the safety of its customers.Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District (2023): raises questions about volunteers' legal recourse in personal injury versus worker’s compensation claims.Vargas v. Gallizzi (2023): addresses the issue of seeking costs for proving evidence after serving Requests for Admissions (RFAs). It explains the laws related to RFAs, including when cost-of-proof sanctions can be applied.For more information:Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge, Inc., 2023 WL 6438060 Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, 2023 WL 6474984 Vargas v. Gallizzi, 2023 WL 6781376 Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, attorney Eric Ganci delves into a range of intriguing legal cases, offering valuable insights and analysis:Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc. (2023): Traverse the maze of the design defect case, as what appeared as a minor design flaw spiraled into intricate legal quandaries and an unforeseen courtroom denouement.Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023): Spotlighting the Requests for Admissions' indispensable role, we dissect its influence when unanswered, particularly in wrongful death litigations.Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster) (2023): Navigate the complexities of responding to formal discovery requests in California's jurisdiction. What truly is the legal mandate when pinpointing specific documents in a reply?A.S. v. Palmdale School District (2023): Ascertain the crucial steps and potential pitfalls in presenting government claim forms, particularly when involving California's government institutions.For more informationCamacho v. JLG Industries Inc. (2023) 2023 WL 4618687Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023 WL 5344893)Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster) case (2023 WL 4861786)A.S. v. Palmdale School District (2023 WL 5524107) Join Eric Ganci on this episode of the Ganci Law Update to gain valuable legal insights into these intriguing cases and more. Learn more about Eric Ganci

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 4308622Learn more about Eric Ganci

Sometimes courts disagree on how to read and interpret the law. CaseyGerry attorney, Eric Ganci explores the decision in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, where the Supreme court steps in to settle a disagreement between two lower courts on whether a design immunity claim against a public government agency can preclude a decision for seeking a claim when a government has failed to warn of a dangerous situation. This raises the question:Does design immunity bar all claims that seek to impose liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous feature of a roadway?Listen to learn more:Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318 Weinstein v. Department of Transportation (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 52 California Government Code section 830.6  California Government Code section 835 Bebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC, cited as of 6/14/23 as 2023 WL 3837260 Miranda v. Bomel Construction Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1326 Sarti v. Salt Creek (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187 CACI 400 CACI 430 Paige v. Safeway, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1108 California Evidence Code section 721(b)Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry trial attorney Eric Ganci discusses Brain injury cases touching on the recent case - Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (Buttram) 2023 WL 3530705.In a Traumatic Brain Injury case, both sides will usually hire experts examine or prove that claim.However, in preliminary testing, neuropsychologists may have the option of not disclosing the results of the preliminary tests, which can cause an issue if the expert is not ethical in their testing and may further present a problem if the expert testifies in court. Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (Buttram) 2023 WL 3530705 Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249 Roe v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 138 CCP § 2032.530 CCP § 2032.610 Downey v. City of Riverside (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1033 Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 Pabla v. Superior Court (Dual Arch International) (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 599 Isaak v. Superior Court (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 792 Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 292 California Civil Code § 1714(a) 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:The reprehensibility of the defendant's action.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

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

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

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

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

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

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