Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
Phoenix
Reno
Denver
North San Diego
Dallas
(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

BWB&O’s Encinitas Office Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment!

Partner Vik Nagpal and Senior Attorney Kristina Pfeifer of our Encinitas office, recently prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment! This matter involved a serious motor vehicle accident involving two Plaintiffs that alleged well-over $1 million in damages.  Plaintiffs sued Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s client as the employer of the defendant driver. After much aggressive discovery and investigation, BWBO was able to obtain sufficient evidence to support that its client could not be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior because there was no evidence to support that BWBO’s client, whose principals own multiple businesses, employed the defendant driver.

BWBO anticipated Plaintiffs would request more time for discovery in their Opposition so that they could later present evidence that BWBO’s client could be held liable under alter ego and agency theories through its ownership of other business that may have employed the defendant driver. Recognizing this potential, BWBO presented evidence and legal authority in its moving papers that Plaintiffs could not prevail on those theories under the facts or law. The Court agreed that BWBO had established that there was no triable issue of material fact as to BWBO’s client’s lack of liability, and that Plaintiffs should not be given more time to pursue alternate theories of liability thereby granting BWBO’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing its client from the case.