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

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client.

BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner.

After reviewing the timeline of facts and the chicanery by Plaintiff, BWB&O crafted a Motion to Quash attacking the DOE Amendment itself under CCP §474. Despite the challenges facing this Motion, including having a high bar of proof, numerous evidentiary hurdles, and strong arguments by Plaintiff in opposition, the Court found BWB&O’s arguments persuasive and granted the Motion in its entirety. The Court noted in its ruling that the prejudice to the building’s owner is manifest in the facts, and summarily dismantled each of Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition, including Plaintiff’s plea that the conduct was excusable. Finally, the Court concluded by stating that since the building’s owner and tenant are operated by the same individual, the individual “would now be faced with fully litigating the case all over again in a manner reminiscent of the situation faced by Bill Murray’s character in the movie ‘Groundhog Day’.”

A HUGE victory and shout out to Tyler, Jonathan, and Anisha for their incredible work!