Representative Cases

Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp. (2025); (Official citation pending).
Defendants operated a large power plant in Palm Springs. While performing a complex annual maintenance procedure, an employee was killed. The accident resulted in the filing of a wrongful death claim against defendants. A jury awarded the plaintiff more than $100 million after the trial court declined to give instructions on both the Privette doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689) and its exceptions. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion reversing the judgment and remanded the case for a retrial with appropriate instructions. A defense motion to dismiss the case after trial was also denied.

Huerta v. City of Santa Ana (2019); 39 Cal. App. 5th 41.
On Halloween night in 2014, three young girls were tragically killed by a speeding motorist as they crossed a street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiffs sued the city of Santa Ana, in which the accident occurred, claiming the crosswalk constituted a “dangerous condition of public property” pursuant to Government Code sections 835 and 835.2. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which affirmed the trial court, finding that the statutory immunity provided by the Government Code applied to the facts of this case.

Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2021); 67 Cal. App. 5th 833.
The plaintiff, a recent medical school graduate, was crossing the street in a crosswalk when the defendant’s insured ran a red light and struck her. As a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered multiple bone fractures, lost her leg, and was left in a coma. The plaintiff’s family retained counsel who repeatedly demanded policy limits information from the defendant. The Auto Club initially declined to provide any policy information; when it finally responded to counsel’s request, it refused to do so in writing. Ultimately, the Auto Club failed to settle plaintiff’s claims within its insured’s $25,000 policy limit. Plaintiff thereafter secured a $26 million judgment against the insured driver along with his rights to pursue a claim against the Auto Club for breaching its covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to him. When the plaintiff thereafter sued the Auto Club, it responded by filing a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which reversed the trial court’s ruling and sent the case back for trial.