Site Map

Successfully defended prominent teaching institution and two individually named doctors in ten years of litigation involving two separate trials, multiple appeals, including Petition For Review by the California Supreme Court in an action alleging medical malpractice and federal civil rights violations where doctors diagnosed and treated an extremely rare metabolic disorder and refused to accept an alternative diagnosis and treatment plan proposed by a family member who was also a licensed health care provider and where that family member also refused to consent to the doctors' proposed treatment plan.

On behalf of a local school district, defended the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance before the Eastern District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiff alleged that the recitation of the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff as the non-custodial parent did not have standing to bring the suit.

Successfully defended hospital owned by one of largest health care systems in California, obtaining judgment in favor of the hospital against charges of elder abuse, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practices and violations of the Probate Code. The hospital was alleged to have abused a patient following hip repair surgery, resulting in further injury, then inappropriately transferred the patient to a skilled nursing facility against the family's wishes. Case resolved by granting of motion for summary judgment.

Represented one of the nation's largest bridge builders against the State of California involving multi-million dollar claims pertaining to air quality issues concerning construction equipment. Case resolved favorably for client prior to trial.

Currently representing a large construction corporation in pursuit of contractual obligations from a large residential developer.

Successfully defended client who acted in capacity of developer, architect, general contractor, framer and structural engineer of residential development to verdict following 21 day jury trial.

Obtained a $2.48 million dollar settlement on behalf of a developer/owner for construction defects at a large apartment complex.

Successfully defended roofing contractor in trial by obtaining a virtual defense verdict.  Plaintiff had demanded more than $100,000 in damages.  Jury awarded merely $128.40 against Defendant roofing contractor. Verdict upheld on appeal on behalf of roofing contractor.

Successfully negotiated resolution on behalf of a property owner in a complex defeasance, fraud, unlawful detainer action involving a commercial prune-packing facility.

Successfully defended clients in a neighbor dispute at both the trial court level and the 9th Circuit on due process and equal protection claims stemming from a lot line adjustment in Placer County.

Obtained a verdict covering full indemnity and attorneys fees and costs, with findings of constructive fraud, for a real estate broker against a former agent who left the broker and client home seller stuck with a buyers walk-away.

Perfected a prescriptive easement for a peach farmer, including access for the farm's heavy trucks and farm machinery, against the new owner of the burdened estate trying to close the road.

Obtained summary judgment in favor of a law firm against claims of malpractice that allegedly caused a $20,000,000.00 loss in county tax revenue.

Prevailed during trial of a legal malpractice claim alleging negligent handling of a dissolution proceeding. Obtained non-suit at the conclusion of Plaintiff's case-in-chief in favor of law firm and lawyers.

Successfully defended hospital and two individually named nurses against allegations of Elder Abuse, Wrongful Death, Negligence and Unfair Business Practices resulting in dismissal of claims against the clients without any payment on their behalf.

Successfully defended claims of Elder Abuse, negligence and wrongful death against nursing home resulting in successful summary adjudication of Elder Abuse claims and dismissal of remaining claims without further cost to client.

Successfully defended a multi-million dollar action alleging inverse condemnation in the form of both regulatory and physical taking arising from denials of development applications and increase flood burden due to public projects.

Successfully defended a university in a case involving asserted equitable easement claim across research facility property next to a major Northern California river where it was alleged easement rights were created by gold miners use of property dating back to the 1960's.

Nominal settlement in a 500+ flood case in which the defendants, who originally did not want to settle, eventually agreed to a sum in excess of $20 million, after trial, multiple appeals and demands.

Currently defending an entity on administrative mandamus and inverse condemnation claims following a stop work order issued in connection with non-functioning alternative disposal system.

Obtained defense verdict at trial in favor of the oldest national forklift manufacturer in an amputation claim. The case involved first impression issues concerning lateral turn-over and safety doors in stand-up forklifts.

Obtained a defense verdict in favor of a large national lawnmower manufacturer in a design defect allegation. Plaintiff was allegedly shot in the chest by a projectile from under the mower deck. Various experts testified that the accident could not have occurred in the manner Plaintiff alleged.

Obtained Summary Judgment for retailer client based on lack of evidence to sustain finds of actual or constructive notice.

Represented a maintenance contractor responsible for premises and building maintenance in a matter in which the Plaintiff tripped and fell down a staircase. The Plaintiff claimed over $250,000 in damages, including extensive hand injuries. Won a motion for summary judgment in favor of the client due to lack of notice and awarded costs against the Plaintiff.

Defended one of the world's largest international retail chains in an action filed by a shopper who allegedly sustained severe shoulder and neck injuries when boxes filled with merchandise fell on her in a shopping aisle. The case was resolved with no cost to the client as a result of tender of defense to the vendor/supplier.

Successfully defended a large national retailer in a false imprisonment/premises liability matter. Plaintiff was suspected of shoplifting and was asked to return to the store to identify the missing merchandise. At the client's request the case was settled for nuisance value in lieu of trial.

Currently representing a local publishing company in a misappropriation of intellectual property and trade secret matter against a national publishing firm.

Represented major Sacramento developer in Napa County in a breach of commercial lease and development transaction involving a movie production studio and damage of movie props. Negotiated substantially in favor of developer client on all financial terms.

Successfully disposed of claims asserted against a public entity employee through use of the Anti-SLAPP provision of the California Code of Civil Procedure resulting in an award of attorney's fees to the public entity client.

Obtained a defense verdict in favor of a large national lawnmower manufacturer in a design defect allegation. Plaintiff was allegedly shot in the chest by a projectile from under the mower deck. Various experts testified that the accident could not have occurred in the manner Plaintiff alleged.

Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of national pet store chain client, finding that the pet store was not negligent nor strictly liable for plaintiff's injuries related to attack by customer's dog.

Won Summary Judgment for large property developer/property owner due to lack of actual/constructive notice of a puddle of rainwater plaintiff claimed caused slip and fall.

Summary judgment granted in the Eastern District on behalf of entity and police officer in pursuit case that alleged the death of the suspect was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overturned Ninth Circuit ruling by successfully arguing before the United States Supreme Court for a new standard governing the constitutionality of police conduct in pursuit of fleeing suspects resulting in unintentional injuries or death.

Currently defending municipality in claim alleging denial of equal protection and in particular the failure to provide equal municipal services such as sewer connections, storm drains, park facilities, available law enforcement and bi-lingual services.

Prevailed on summary judgment, as well as at the Ninth Circuit, on claims filed against a Sheriff's Department and two deputies for use of deadly force. Deputies shot at plaintiff when he refused to obey commands to stop and drop a three foot long metal sword which he had been carrying throughout a residential neighborhood, exhibiting bizarre and erratic behavior. The deputies shot as plaintiff began to gain access to a residence via the backyard after numerous failed attempts to gain his attention and cooperation. At the time of the shooting, deputies were unaware that the home was the unoccupied home of plaintiff himself. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries and as a result became paraplegic. Both courts held that deadly force was appropriate even where there were no identified third parties to whom the suspect posed a serious threat of harm.

Porter Scott represented a county in an action to require a sheriff's deputy to accept disability retirement status because of her increasing emotional instability. Porter Scott prevailed before the administrative law judge (ALJ), who relied upon evidence including a long psychological evaluation of the deputy indicating serious problems. The trial court, however, ignored the ALJ's detailed findings and granted administrative mandamus in favor of the deputy, ruling that no substantial evidence established that the deputy was incapable of performing her basic job duties. The Third District Court of Appeal, however, reversed the judgment in favor of the county. The opinion published held that there is a strong presumption in favor of the administrative findings, and that considerable evidence supported the ALJ's decision that the deputy was unable to perform her job. Moreover, the opinion established that for a peace officer, "substantial inability to perform usual duties" is not just a narrow technical question about physical job requirements, but should also encompass more broadly those emotional and character fitness requirements set forth in the Government Code and POST standards. (Sager v. County of Yuba (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1049)

Currently defending egg rancher against claims by neighboring property owners and The Humane Society for nuisance and CERCLA reporting requirements.

Summary judgment was granted by the Eastern District of California in favor of the University of California in a heavily litigated Title IX case that was pending for more than four years. The plaintiffs, former UC Davis students, claimed the University failed to accommodate the interests of its female students because women who want to be on the intercollegiate wrestling team at UC Davis are required to try out for the team under the same requirements as male students who want to be on the team. Ruling on an issue of first impression in the Eastern District of California, the judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to give the campus adequate notice of their claim, resulting in its dismissal. In an earlier motion for judgment on the pleadings, Porter Scott was successful in obtaining a ruling dismissing the majority of plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of the statute of limitations and dismissing claims against the individual defendants under 42 USC section 1983 on the basis of statutory pre-emption.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal.  During the pendency of the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that individuals can be held liable in Title IX cases under section 1983.  The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion overturning the lower court on the notice issue and remanding the matter to the district court for further proceedings.  UC Davis, a recognized leader in women’s athletics, continues to vigorously defend against the claims.

Currently defending owner/developer of residential development against claims by general contractor and subcontractor of changed work conditions resulting in increased costs.

Successfully obtained dismissal of the Sacramento County Sheriff and Sacramento County via a Summary Judgment Motion on claims that the jail failed to notify a pre-trial detainee of extra-jurisdictional outstanding warrants, detainers, holds or notices, where plaintiff was held over without trial for over six years. Significantly, the District Court determined that the Sheriff was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for merely acting as jailor pending criminal proceedings, regardless that those charges were later dropped on Sixth Amendment grounds (violation of right to speedy trial).

Obtained summary judgment for school district on claims of defamation arising out of termination of the employee for fraud.

Obtained summary judgment for a University and one of its employee's claims of gender discrimination and gender harassment. Affirmed on appeal.

Obtained summary judgment for school district after a teacher sued claiming that he was harassed by his third grade students. The teacher also claimed his termination for poor performance was retaliatory.

Currently representing one of California’s largest egg producers against federal environmental claims brought by the Humane Society of the United States, related to the animal rights group’s Proposition 2 campaign against factory farms. Along with local residents, the Humane Society of the United States alleges that our client violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) for failing to report ammonia emissions from its animal waste. CERCLA and EPCRA were enacted to provide the federal government with broad authority to respond to releases of hazardous waste.

Obtained a defense judgment for local auto dealership after a 5-day jury trial against one of California’s largest consumer rights litigation firms.  Complaint alleged violations of state and federal consumer protection laws, including breach of implied warranty, also known as “Magnuson-Moss” claims.

Currently representing a local contractor in one of the largest construction defect cases in California, with more than 70 parties in the action and more parties still being added.   The complaint has alleged defects at the Jackson Rancheria hotel, casino and accompanying parking structure with multi-million dollars alleged in damages.

Jury awards defense verdict as to the County of Sacramento on claims for excessive force and inappropriate medical and psychiatric care of arrestee in jail.

Summary Judgment granted as to pharmacy malpractice claim against retailer and pharmacist for alleged cancellation of a prescription.

Currently defending a public entity sanitation district against a claim for quiet title, involving the entity's previous acquisition of land by eminent domain.

Obtained summary judgment in favor of a retailer and pharmacist in pharmacy malpractice claim.  After plaintiff and his caregiver exhibited threatening and menacing behavior, the retailer deactivated plaintiff’s prescription in its computer system, forcing plaintiff to find another pharmacy to refill his prescription.  Plaintiff sued for malpractice over the deactivation of his prescription and the delay in refilling it.  The court granted judgment in favor of the retailer and the pharmacist.

Defense verdict in favor of municipality against claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs against a police officer and his law enforcement employer.  Plaintiff was detained in the sobering cell of the jail for DUI and hit and run.  Despite having a .18 blood alcohol level, plaintiff claimed the police department was deliberately indifferent when they deprived him of his mood stabilizing prescription while he was detoxing from alcohol consumption.  Plaintiff also alleged excessive force after he attacked an officer in the sobering cell.  A jury unanimously found in favor of the police department, but were hung (7 to 1 in favor of the officer) as to the individual police officer.  Plaintiff dismissed the officer a few weeks after the verdict.

Successfully obtained dismissal in favor of retailer when a customer fell off a ladder designated for employee use only.  Plaintiff spotted a ladder designated for employee use only, untied the ladder from a secure location, and climbed up the ladder to retrieve merchandise from the top shelf of a display, despite a sign instructing customers to ask for assistance with merchandise on the top shelf.  Plaintiff fell off the ladder, and claimed the retailer was liable since the ladder created an “acknowledged temptation.”  Porter Scott obtained a defense verdict at arbitration.  Plaintiff asked the arbitrator for an award of $350,000.00.  Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her case a few weeks after the arbitration award.

Brought quiet title action on behalf of individual property developer who purchased residential property at county tax sale.  Liens were originally held by two private defendants, two state entities and the United States on behalf of the IRS.  Currently attempting to broker potential negotiations between the IRS and county conducting the sale over deficiencies in the sale's process.

Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of a California food sales agency client sued by a competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, unlawful solicitation, and alleged breach of non-competition agreements, among other claims.  After defeating Plaintiff's multiple attempts to seek injunctive relief and conducting a damaging deposition of Plaintiff's President, Porter Scott successfully negotiated a nuisance value settlement in exchange for a full release and dismissal within approximately four months of Plaintiff bringing the case.  Plaintiff initially demanded damages amounting to more than $1,000,000

Obtained Ninth Circuit reversal of preliminary injunction sought by life-term state prisoners seeking more frequent parole hearings than provided under Proposition 9.  The prisoners claimed  changes in statute occurring after commission of offenses and sentencing violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of U.S. Constitution.  In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals held the proposition was not unconstitutional.  Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir., 2011)

Obtained judgment from Labor Commissioner against employer on behalf of employee for unpaid wages, bounced checks, and statutory penalties.

Currenty representing multiple Sacramento-area apartment complexes in resolving ADA accessibility lawsuits, minimizing damages, future claims and out-of-pocket costs.

Currently representing multiple small businesses in resolving ADA lawsuits and making cost-conscious and cost-effective alterations.

Successfully consulted with Bay Area non-profit organization on a series of multi-employee terminations for misconduct, and later a large reduction in force based on California budget cuts.  Minimized risk and avoided employment claims from both.

Won a motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination case on behalf of an apartment management company sued by a former maintenance manager.  The case was challenging because the former maintenance manager had a heart attack and testified his supervisor authorized him to hire a maintenance helper as a disability accommodation.  We were able to demonstrate the undisputed evidence was that the maintenance manager was not disabled by his heart attack and that hiring a maintenance helper was not a reasonable accommodation because there was no money in the budget.  The maintenance manager also sued two employees of the apartment management company.  We obtained their dismissal by a demurrer filed before beginning discovery.  

Prevailed on directed verdict motion on claims filed against an escrow company over a multimillion dollar commercial real estate sale in Kern County, California.  Defeated both breach of contract and negligence claims against defendant escrow company and obtained judgment in favor of our client for attorney's fees as prevailing party. 

Obtained variance from Homeowner’s Association CC&Rs’ 10% cap on number of properties permitted to be rented.  Variance permitted property owner to rent property in lieu of being forced to sell in declining real estate market.

Represented historic Sacramento restaurant and bar in ADA litigation and ensured proper ADA compliance to protect against future claims.

Summary judgment granted in favor of school district in a case where a third grade teacher accused a third grade student, the school, and various administrators of sexual harassment after the third grade student drew pictures of the plaintiff wearing a bikini and made up rhymes insinuating that he was homosexual.

Summary judgment granted in two companion cases filed by former employees of a public utility district claiming wrongful termination, harassment and whistleblower retaliation.  The cases involved two long-time employees who claimed years of harassment, denial of promotions and ultimately termination. The cases were factually intensive, required thorough discovery, and extensive presentation of evidence to defeat the former employees' many claims and demonstrate the employer’s legitimate reasons for terminating the employees.  Porter Scott is pursuing recovery of costs. 

Informally settled case involving an employer who “sexted” an employee.  The employer texted an employee with requests for sexual favors in exchange for helping the employee advance at work.  The young employee immediately quit.  We successfully negotiated a pre-lawsuit settlement for a fraction of the potential exposure.

Successfully represented a healthcare employer in alleged disability discrimination case.  Case was resolved at mediation for a nominal amount after Plaintiff had initially demanded over $1.5 million dollars.

Obtained a favorable outcome at mediation for the employer in a case involving allegations of race discrimination and retaliation.  Plaintiff had multiple outstanding workers’ compensation claims in addition to the civil suit.  A global agreement was reached at mediation which resolved both the civil and workers’ compensation claims.

Successfully represented individually named defendant in harassment and hostile work environment action brought against the employer and several of its employees.  Obtained a complete dismissal with prejudice for the defendant at outset of case.

Porter Scott obtained a $9.1 million binding arbitration award before a three judge panel on behalf of one of Sacramento's major beverage distributors.  Following a nine day binding arbitration in San Francisco before a JAMS panel, partners Carl Calnero and Martin Jensen prevailed in a major commercial/business matter of first impression in California.  In the case, the firm represented a family-owned, successful beverage distributor who had been denied a fair market value for the sale of their business, based on a contract provision within the distribution rights agreement.  That provision purportedly gave the right to the manufacturer to approve or disapprove of the dealership rights sale.  The manufacturer, one of the nations largest beer and alcoholic beverage manufacturers, had rejected the sale claiming that the designated purchaser did not satisfy its requirements for approval. Despite the fact that that same purchasing designee had in fact been appointed as a beverage distributor for that very same manufacturer in various other parts of California.  The manufacturer contended that it had the right to determine which markets would be served by various dealerships, and therefore impinged on the right of Porter Scott’s client to sell its distribution rights to a bonafide purchaser for a fair market value.  California Statutory Law dictates that in such a scenario, if the “disapproval” was accomplished in bad faith, the manufacturer would be responsible to the selling dealer for the difference in fair market value lost.  Although statutory law had been clear, the case and decision now cements the rights of dealers to alienate or sell their exclusive distribution rights, no longer subject to the whims of a manufacturer or supplier.

Partners Carl Calnero and Carl Fessenden, assisted by associate Derek Haynes, achieved a defense verdict in a catastrophic injury case filed against a major public university.  In this matter, the injured plaintiff and his wife sued the university, alleging, among other things, the university was responsible for creating a dangerous condition of public property with respect to its roadways and/or with respect to use of a four seat golf cart/utility vehicle without seatbelts.  The plaintiff had been on campus, working with campus staff, helping install and/or troubleshoot certain wireless technology.  Plaintiff fell out of the rear of a four seat utility cart or shuttle at approximately 9:00 p.m., after his laptop had fallen off of his lap and onto the ground.  The Porter Scott attorneys contended that the plaintiff carelessly stepped off of the golf cart and argued further, based on scientific testing, that such an individual could not possibly be thrown involuntarily from such a vehicle.  The plaintiff had suffered severe brain injuries and was seeking multi-million dollars in damages.  Following a 30 day jury trial, a jury returned an unanimous verdict on all counts in favor of the university, rejecting the notion that the university’s roadways were in a dangerous state and/or rejected the notion that failure to provide seatbelts on shuttles or golf carts constituted a dangerous condition of public property.

Porter Scott attorneys David Melton and Colleen Howard obtained a defense verdict for a retailer in a jury trial in the Sacramento County Superior Court.  The plaintiff alleged that he was beaten by the store's loss prevention associates after a verbal altercation between the plaintiff and another customer had started inside the store. 

Obtained summary judgment, which was upheld on appeal, on the basis of assumption of the risk when a participant in an arm wrestling competition at a local fair suffered a spiral fracture to the arm when competing against a much larger and more experienced opponent.  The unsuccessful plaintiff was ultimately ordered to pay our client its costs incurred in defending the suit and the appeal.

Obtained a dismissal of action brought by a customer of a large local retail chain who claimed to have slipped in dog feces inside the store despite surveillance video which confirmed that there had been no animals in the store and nothing on the floor up until the moment of the accident.

Summary judgment granted on behalf of a county employer in a race discrimination, retaliation, and defamation case.  The plaintiff social worker was terminated for performance reasons following her involvement in a highly publicized case involving the death of a toddler.  The court disposed of all of her claims, finding that the county employer had demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its decision to terminate her. 

Obtained summary judgment, which was upheld on appeal, on the basis of assumption of the risk when a participant in an arm wrestling competition at a local fair suffered a spiral fracture to the arm when competing against a much larger and more experienced opponent.  The unsuccessful plaintiff was ultimately ordered to pay our client its costs incurred in defending the suit and the appeal.

Obtained a dismissal of action brought by a customer of a large local retail chain who claimed to have slipped in dog feces inside the store despite surveillance video which confirmed that there had been no animals in the store and nothing on the floor up until the moment of the accident.

Defended large county against claims that county’s jail, one of the largest in the nation, did not provide sufficient accommodation to disabled persons. Successfully established plaintiff’s lack of Article III standing at pleadings stage, preventing plaintiff from obtaining injunctive relief that would require significant overhaul of county detention facilities. Obtained summary judgment in County’s favor against plaintiff’s damages claims under state and federal law, establishing no monetary liability for County’s alleged failure to provide accessible detention facilities

Represented state agency in high-profile employment matter involving termination of former executive director.  Through summary judgment, obtained dismissal of all civil rights claims against the individual board members of state agency, affirming principle that public employees are not protected by the First Amendment when they speak as part of their official duties, even when testifying in an unrelated criminal matter. Successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of agency on plaintiff’s fair employment and housing claim, wrongful termination claim, and pay-discrimination claim.

Won two motions for summary adjudication for an employer on race, national origin, and retaliation claims arising out of a researcher’s denial of a promotion at a major university.  The plaintiff brought claims for both disparate treatment-type and disparate impact-type discrimination.  In ruling on the first motion for summary adjudication, the court found no evidence of intentional discrimination or retaliation.  After consulting with and retaining a statistical expert, Porter Scott won the second motion for summary adjudication which addressed the disparate impact-type discrimination claim.  Combined, these motions resolved the entire case in the university’s favor. 

Norm Prior and Jacqueline Zee obtained Summary Judgment  in favor of a nationwide tissue bank against claims of medical negligence for providing infected corneal tissue for transplantation that resulted in the permanent loss of vision and disfigurement of the tissue recipient. 

Norm Prior and Jacqueline Zee obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of an acute care hospital against claims of medical negligence that allegedly caused a patient to contract meningitis after the  tip of a catheter broke off during spinal surgery. The patient underwent multiple subsequent surgeries and hospitalizations which the patient alleged resulted in permanent disabling injuries.

Represented a family-owned insurance brokerage company in a breach of contract case.  Plaintiffs claimed their insurance brokerage was negligent in failing to tender a claim to their insurance company, causing them to pay for their own defense in a separate lawsuit.  After a jury verdict, plaintiffs were awarded only one fifth of the amount they demanded prior to trial.

Represented a national retail chain against a plaintiff alleging premises liability and negligence after she tripped and fell on a shopping cart corral.  After pointing out procedural defects, plaintiff dismissed the case, prompting the court to award costs to defendant.

Successfully negotiated settlement in a case involving a plaintiff who sustained an open book pelvic fracture when he collided with defendant while riding a motorcycle. 

Obtained a defense verdict at trial where plaintiff accused a retailer of assault, battery, and false imprisonment after plaintiff was arrested for fighting in public.

Obtained favorable settlement against a defendant who negligently struck client’s vehicle in a parking lot, causing our client to sustain a broken wrist.

Obtained insurance policy limits for a plaintiff who sustained significant shoulder injuries and multiple surgeries after being struck while in a crosswalk with the right-of-way.

Successfully represented plaintiff as prevailing party in a jury trial involving construction defects at plaintiff's residence exceeding 10,000 square feet.

Successfully defended target defendant involved in construction defects totaling an alleged $100 million at a Northern California Indian Casino.