The following list contains some notable personal injury case summaries filed by Freking & Betz, LLC. Our Cincinnati law firm wins settlements for a wide variety of personal injury cases, including wrongful death settlements, medical malpractice settlements, premises liability cases, and product liability settlements in addition to employment law, defamation and slander cases.
Injury & Tort Law
[03/20] Am. Trucking Assoc. v. Los Angeles
In an action to enjoin the implementation of mandatory concession agreements for drayage trucking services as preempted by the FAA Act, denial of a preliminary injunction is reversed, where the agreements were "related to a price, route or service" of a motor carrier.
[03/20] Paulsen v. CNF Inc.
In an ERISA action for unpaid retirement benefits, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff-Employees' claims did not fall within ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, but reversed in part, where Defendant-Auditor may have owed a duty of care to Plaintiff-Employees as third-party beneficiaries.
[03/20] Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc
In a dispute over a sales contract, district court's judgment is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in not granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's tortious interference with contractual relationships claim as the jury did not find that defendant's conduct constituted fraudulent misrepresentation; and 2) compensatory and punitive damages against defendant and grant of an injunction in plaintiff's favor should not have been awarded. Judgment is affirmed where the district court properly ruled against defendant on evidentiary issues, attorneys' fees, judgment as a matter of law on defendant's counterclaims, summary judgment on the groundless litigation claim, and order holding defendant in contempt of court.
[03/20] Bains v. Moores
In a fraud action involving shares of stock, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence or demonstrate a triable issue of fact that defendant had knowledge of the fraud; 2) plaintiffs cannot use the group published information doctrine to support their cause of action as it is a pleading device that has no application in the summary judgment context; 3) trial court did not err in sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiffs' Corporations Code section 25504 claim as plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate record of the claim or demonstrate they could have made the claim at all; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to stay the proceedings.
[03/19] Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
In an premises liability action involving an injury from a power line owned by defendant on plaintiff's property, Court of Appeal's decision is reversed where: 1) defendant's immunity from liability to injured party Jackson under Civil Code sec. 846 bars plaintiff from recovering on an implied contractual indemnity theory; and 2) plaintiff and defendant may defend against the injured party's suit by claiming the recreational use immunity provided in sec. 846.
[03/19] Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
In a products liability action involving an aircraft, trial court's dismissal order is reversed where the court erred in dismissing the matter for failure to bring it to trial within three years of commencement of the action, as the court's jurisdiction was suspended for all but seven months of the period between the filing of the complaint and entry of the dismissal order.
[03/19] The Nethercutt Collection v. Regalia
In a slander action, ruling in favor of plaintiff is reversed where statements by defendants against plaintiff should have been presented to the jury as slander per quod rather than as slander per se. Defendants are entitled to judgment without a retrial as the jury found that plaintiff did not suffer actual damages, a necessary element of an action for slander per quod.
[03/19] Levesque v. Doocy
In a defamation action against the Fox News Network, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where plaintiff did not prove with convincing clarity that the defendants acted with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth when it reported on the allegedly defamatory statements.
[03/18] 321 Henderson Receivables Origination LLC v. Tomahawk
In an action involving structured settlement payment transfers, trial court's denial of plaintiff's petition to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff is the transferee prosecuting the special proceeding, and thus the superior court erred in concluding that plaintiff could not seek dismissal of the Structured Settlement Transfer Act petition under section 581 because he did constitute a plaintiff under the terms of the statute; and 2) trial court must grant plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal with or without prejudice under section 581(b)(1).
[03/18] Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., Inc.
In a Federal Employers' Liability Act action based on injuries Plaintiffs sustained in working at Defendant's railroad yard, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where a Federal Railway Safety Act regulation covered the hazard at issue and precluded Plaintiffs' negligence claims.
[03/17] Campo v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In an action claiming that Defendant-Insurer's negligent misrepresentations caused Plaintiff not to renew his insurance policy, summary judgment for Defendant is reversed, where federal law did not preempt Plaintiff's claim for inducement not to renew the policy.
[03/17] US ex rel Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc.
In an action involving the False Claims Act, district court's denial of leave to amend and motion to alter or amend the judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court's properly denied plaintiff's motion after he conceded his initial complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement; and 2) plaintiff's subsequent amended pleading did not explain how it cured the Rule 9(b) deficiencies in the initial complaint.
[03/17] Chavez v. Carranza
In an action under the Alien Tort Claims Act for crimes against humanity by the government of El Salvador, judgment for Plaintiffs is affirmed, where equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was proper because the situation in El Salvador at the relevant time precluded the administration of justice.
[03/16] Chang v. Lederman
In a legal malpractice action, trial court's dismissal is affirmed where: 1) lawyer's have a duty of care to nonclients who are expressly named beneficiaries of express bequests in a will, but no duty to unnamed potential beneficiaries; and 2) there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress as defendant's actions were absolutely protected under the litigation privilege and none of the alleged conduct could reasonably be regarded as extreme or outrageous.
[03/12] US Fire Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP
In a suit to enjoin defendant-law firm from representing a committee of asbestos creditors based on a conflict of interest, denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed where the allegations on which plaintiff's complaint was based did not involve protected activity under the relevant statute.
[03/12] Sullivan v. Oregon Ford, Inc.
In a personal injury case based on a slip and fall, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendant was responsible for the alleged hazard and failed to produce evidence that the hazard existed for a sufficient time to provide constructive notice.
[03/11] Santos v. US
In a medical malpractice action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the equitable tolling doctrine applies to the Federal Tort Claims Act's statute of limitations; and 2) the equitable tolling doctrine applies here to toll the FTCA's statute of limitations until plaintiff learned that the state-court defendants had been deemed federal employees, as plaintiff exercised due diligence in pursuing her claim and federal involvement was oblique.
[03/11] Martin v. Harris
In an admiralty action based on a slip and fall accident, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed in part, where there was sufficient evidence that Defendant created the dangerous condition, but reversed in part, where the District Court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on Plaintiff's Jones Act claim.
[03/11] Lewis v. W. Palm Beach
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on the death of Plaintiff's decedent while being arrested by Defendant-Officers, summary judgment for Defendants based on qualified immunity is affirmed, where the officers' actions in restraining Plaintiff's decedent were not so violent and harsh to be considered an egregious violation of a constitutional right.
[03/10] Walker v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
In an unfair competition action challenging Defendant-Insurers' volume discount agreements with certain auto body shops, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where Plaintiff failed to allege that he "suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property" under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17204.
If you or a loved one have suffered a personal injury or wrongful termination and need experienced attorneys in the Cincinnati area to help you get the settlement you deserve, please call Freking & Betz at 513-721-1975, or fill out our quick web contact form.
