Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
North San Diego
(949)221-1000 (949)221-1001 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA 92660
(818)712-9800 (818)712-9900 21215 Burbank Blvd. Suite 500, Woodland Hills CA 91367
(702)258-6665 (702)258-6662 1160 N Town Center Dr Suite 250, Las Vegas NV 89144
(619)236-0048 (619)236-0047 501 West Broadway Suite 1700, San Diego CA 92101
(510)540-4881 (510)540-4889 2033 N. Main St. Suite 600, Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
(602)274-1204 (602)274-1205 8950 South 52nd St Suite 201, Tempe AZ 85284
(775)440-2389 (775) 440-2390 50 West Liberty Suite 1090, Reno NV 89501
(720) 779-2500 (303)256-6205 1999 Broadway, Suite 3250, Denver, Colorado 80202
(760)557-2940 (619)389-2993 760 Garden View Ct. Unit #220 Encinitas, CA 92024
(949) 221-1000 (949) 221-1001 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75201

Another Motion for Summary Judgment Granted: Congratulations to Partner Michael D’Andrea and Senior Associate Dean Solomon!

Michael and Dean

Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Los Angeles Partner Michael D’Andrea and Senior Associate Dean Solomon have obtained a favorable ruling from the Court with respect to their client’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”). The granting of the MSJ will result in complete dismissal of their client in a multi-million dollar personal injury case.

The case involved injuries to Plaintiff, who was hurt when he was unloading large commercial signs from a semi-truck. The signs, weighing hundreds of pounds, became loose during transport and ultimately collided with Plaintiff during unpacking, causing him alleged significant injuries. BWB&O’s client was a large commercial manufacturer of custom advertising and signage located in Texas. Plaintiff alleged that although BWB&O’s client did not package the signs for transport, it was ultimately responsible because it “negligently” communicated how it preferred the signs to be transported. Plaintiff also alleged that BWB&O’s client was essentially an alter ego of the company that packaged the signs in question.

Michael and Dean filed an MSJ on behalf of their client, arguing that there was no evidence their client negligently packaged the signs. In addition, Michael and Dean argued the alter ego theory did not have merit. Lastly, Michael and Dean argued that the proper defendants were already in the case and that the suit against the BWB&O client was nothing more than an attempt to legally stretch the claim to an innocent business.

The Court agreed with Michael and Dean’s position and granted the MSJ, ultimately leading to a complete dismissal for BWB&O’s client. This is a significant victory as Plaintiff demanded millions of dollars from BWB&O’s client and refused to negotiate reasonably prior to the MSJ.

BWB&O is pleased with yet another victory!