Success Stories - Case Results

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor.  After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.

ADAM J. HARMONING, ARAZ PARSEGHIAN, AND DARLENE DRAVIS, individually, and on behalf those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, vs. HOMESTREET BANK, a Washington corporation, Defendant.

CCTLA board member John Stralen from the Arnold Law Firm, CCTLA member Darren Guez, from the Law Offices of Darren Guez, and Douglas Han and Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh from the Justice Law Corporation, together acting as co-lead counsel, obtained final court approval of a $3,500,000.00 settlement on behalf of a class of current and former mortgage officers employed by Homestreet Bank.

Plaintiffs alleged overtime violations and failure to reimburse business-related expenses on behalf of a putative California class of current and former Homestreet Bank mortgage officers who were classified as exempt outside sales representatives. Plaintiffs also sought “PAGA” penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Plaintiffs’ allegations included claims that the class of employees were designated as exempt outside sales representatives whose job descriptions required them to spend more than 50% of their work hours outside of the office, as a required to maintain their exempt status. However, despite this requirement, Homestreet Bank had paid little or no money to class members for expense reimbursement.

This case involved three separate lawsuits. One was filed by attorneys John Stralen and Darren Guez on behalf of Plaintiff Adam Harmoning in Sacramento County Superior Court. The other two were filed by attorneys from the Justice Law Corporation, one in Los Angeles County Superior Court and the other in Alameda County Superior Court. After the cases were resolved at mediation, they were consolidated with the Harmoning action filed in Sacramento where final approval of the settlement was obtained.

40-year-old Earl Bode and his wife Christine walked into the Arnold Law Firm with three garbage bags of medical receipts and insurance documents handed to them by their prior attorney. Accused of causing an accident that was not Earl’s fault and with his own insurance company claiming he was uninsured, Mr. Bode was dazed and hurt. He had suffered a permanent brain injury and multiple other physical injuries when two Sacramento County probation officers, speeding without cause down the center turn lane of a busy Sacramento thoroughfare during rush hour, struck Earl Bode’s vehicle broadside at 50 miles per hour as Bode attempted to make a lawful left turn. Despite a police report (authored by acquaintances of the probation officers) that blamed Bode 100% for the collision, the Arnold Law Firm believed Earl’s version of how the collision occurred and undertook his representation.

The Arnold Firm first succeeded in suing Earl Bode’s own insurance company to establish the coverage necessary to sue the County. In the ensuing lawsuit against the County of Sacramento, Earl was wrongfully accused of faking his brain injury, an injury that kept him from his life’s work as a commercial construction site supervisor. The Arnold Law Firm and its experts proved through accident reconstruction that Earl’s version of the collision was in fact what happened, and that the County probation officers were at fault. Using sophisticated medical technologies, including EEG and PET scan, to show the damage to Earl’s brain, plaintiffs forced the County’s medical experts to take back their charges that Earl was faking. After four, hard-fought years of battle for redemption and compensation, Earl and Christine Bode settled their lawsuit against the County of Sacramento for $3,500,000, an amount sufficient to provide Earl with the care and replace the financial opportunities taken from him and his family.

Adam H. had been a mortgage loan officer (MLO) in California for an established Missouri-based financial institution for four years and was growing frustrated with the company failing to reimburse him for business expenditures that he incurred while performing his work.

The company policy clearly outlined expenses eligible for reimbursement, but Adam’s expense report submissions were routinely denied and/or delayed. His coworkers lamented about similar problems with expense reimbursement.

Reaching out to management failed to resolve the issue, so Adam came to the Arnold Law Firm for help. The bank acknowledged that Adam submitted expense reports, but claimed that he didn’t fill out the forms properly as an excuse for failing to pay for his expenses.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm found that Adam’s employer had violated California wage and hour laws by failing to reimburse MLOs for incurred daily business expenses required to carry out their duties, such as mileage, toll charges, parking charges, and cell phone use.

The company expected their MLOs to spend more than half of their working time away from corporate branch locations. As such, they were required to use their own personal motor vehicles for work-related travel and other home office expenses, such as a cell phone and printer.

However, despite written policy, the bank did not fully pay for work-related office expenses or personal motor vehicles use, including liability insurance, mileage, gas, parking, and tolls. Expenses that the company did reimburse often took several months to process.

The financial institution initially offered Adam a paltry $5,000 settlement, arguing that there was no uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees in violation of wage and hour laws to justify a class claim.

Evidence for over 100 class members demonstrated otherwise. The employer clearly failed to abide by their own written reimbursement policy. Further investigations revealed that the MLO position was misclassified, resulting in substantial unpaid overtime and paid rest periods.

The Arnold Law Firm settled the class action suit against the bank for $3,500,000.

RadNet Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Casey Geery Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP and Federman & Sherwood, reached a settlement in the RadNet data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Noreen Pfeiffer et al. v. RadNet, Inc., filed in the United States District Court Central District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-09553-RGK. The settlement resulted in a $2,600,000 settlement fund.

The Honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on August 18, 2021. The hearing for final approval will be held on February 7, 2022.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Identity Guard’s Identity Restoration Services for a period of 5 years, up to $15,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 5 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $25 per hour, and $75 for Class Members who are California residents This settlement is an excellent result, especially for California residents because of the violations of California’s new Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150, also known as the CCPA. (California Class Members can choose out-of-pocket losses or $75, whichever is greater).

History of the data breach: On November 11, 2020, The Arnold Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California entitled Donna Horowitz et al. v. RadNet, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-1032B. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) breach of confidence; (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (5) violation of California’s Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150.

Wrongfully blamed: What really happened to Randy Stevens.

Randy Stevens opened his eyes and saw his wife standing over him in a hospital room. He had no idea what happened. His last memory was of standing next to his truck trailer and watching as a Security Contractor Services forklift driver struggled to load an ungainly pallet of 12-foot by 6-foot sections of chain-link fencing.

When Stevens asked what happened to him, he was told he had slipped or fallen out of his truck trailer and struck his head. But that didn’t make any sense. When he examined himself he realized he didn’t have a scratch on him. How do you fall 4 feet from the truck trailer that hard without scraping something?

But the worst was yet to come. The blow to Stevens head caused permanent, disabling damage to his brain. He can no longer accomplish simple tasks without a detailed to-do list and is easily confused and agitated. Resulting personality changes have adversely affected his relationships with his family and friends and most importantly with his loving wife of 37 years. A man who earned his commercial truck-driving license at age 15, today finds himself no longer able to work.

Stevens came to the Arnold Law Firm for help, and Clayeo Arnold took up his case against a defendant who blamed Stevens for the incident and claimed his brain injury was not that bad.

It took the resources of professional safety experts and physicians brought in by the Arnold Law Firm to scientifically establish that the alleged scrape-free tumble could not have been the cause of Stevens permanent brain injury. No, the forensic investigation showed that the 3,000 pound bundle of chain-link fencing struck Stevens’ head with a frightening force of 50gs when the forklift driver lost control of his load and dropped it on Stevens.

The Arnold Law Firm took the case to trial. By the time they finished presenting their evidence, they had convinced the jury of both the severity of Stevens’ debilitating injury and the negligence of the Security Contractor Services employees. The jury awarded Stevens and his wife $2.6 million.

Lauren C. was driving on Highway 50 in stop-and-go traffic to her job as a nurse in Placerville. Suddenly, a white Dodge Ram pickup rear-ended her car so hard that she was pushed into additional vehicles in front of her. In total, the impact of the truck caused four vehicles to collide.

Lauren lost consciousness and had to be extracted from her car. She suffered multiple lacerations and traumatic brain injury (TBI) and was rushed into surgery for an internal brain hemorrhage. She also suffered broken ribs and damage to her lumbar spine.

Lauren’s recovery was very slow, which is common with TBI. Her ongoing symptoms were debilitating and included severe headaches, vision and verbal interruptions, balance issues, numbness, memory loss, and sleep issues. She incurred many additional trips to the ER and was terrified to travel in a car, even as a passenger. Her doctors warned that she may never be able to return to her career as a trauma RN.

Within just a few months, the other driver’s insurance company offered the $250,000 policy limit, which didn’t begin to cover Lauren’s mounting medical bills, not to mention her loss of income and significantly diminished capacity.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm discovered that, while the driver maintained personal insurance coverage on the Dodge pickup, the vehicle was actively being used for commercial purposes for an electrical company at the time of the collision. We promptly filed suit against the corporation and negotiated a settlement in the amount of $2,250,000, a policy limit settlement.

Medicare and TRICARE Fraud – The Arnold Law Firm is proud to announce its winning settlement in a case against Precision Medical Products, Inc., in an allegation that the company submitted false claims for reimbursement from the Medicare and TRICARE programs.

The provider of durable medical and orthotic equipment is alleged to have violated the False Claims Act, according to U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott. This settlement resolves several allegations, including the allegation that PMP, Inc., paid commissions to independent contractors based on volumes and values of patient referrals between October 1, 2011, and December 1, 2017. This is a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.

The three whistleblowers in this case will share a portion of the recovered compensation with the federal government as per provisions of the False Claims Act. The whistleblowers were represented by the Arnold Law Firm.

Read more about this success story:

Kristine T. and her husband headed out with their family for dinner on a Monday evening at a Mongolian BBQ restaurant located at a strip mall in Stockton, California. It had been raining most of the day, but the storm had recently passed.

While walking towards the restaurant, Kristine lost her footing as she stepped onto the tile walkway. She pitched forward, but had no time to put her hands out to break her fall, causing her to land directly on the left side of her face. Kristine briefly lost consciousness. Her husband immediately took her to the emergency room.

Kristine suffered numerous injuries to her head, jaw, shoulder, knee, neck, back, arm and teeth and was hospitalized for three days. Her traumatic brain injury (TBI) resulted in persistent symptoms, such as severe headaches, memory loss, vision issues, slurred speech and stuttering. She was unable to perform routine daily activities, and her doctors determined that she was unable to work.

The slippery tile surface had been an ongoing issue at the mall and had been the cause of several previous accidents. Although the problem had been previously reported, the property manager had not adequately fixed the safety hazard.

Unfortunately, the property insurance coverage had lapsed at the time of the accident, so Kristine’s claim was denied. The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm took her case to trial, obtaining a judgment for the amount of $1,750.000, plus interest.

KATHRYN CAIN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. LESLIE, SR., Plaintiffs, vs. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., doing business in California; J.B. HUNT LOGISTICS, INC.; NARINDER S. MAHAL

CCTLA board member John Stralen, and CCTLA member Gina Bowden, from the Arnold Law Firm, recently obtained final judgment, following the San Joaquin County Superior Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on her breach of contract action, which arose out of the Defendant’s failure to pay settlement funds.

The Underlying Personal Injury Case

The case stems from a May 9, 2016, multi-vehicle collision on Highway 4, in Stockton, when a loaded big rig rear-ended Mr. William Leslie’s car and caused a chain-reaction collision to occur between Mr. Leslie’s pickup and two other vehicles. At the time, Mr. Leslie was a 73-year-old, retired lumber mill worker.

The collision caused Mr. Leslie to suffer vertebral fractures, requiring a two-level fusion surgery and post-surgery physical therapy. Medicare had paid approximately $105,000.00 for his medical care related to his injuries. Since he was retired, no wage loss claim was made.

The Parties Settle Mr. Leslie’s Personal Injury Case

In August of 2017, defense counsel sent a written settlement offer, which expressly conditioned settlement upon “a complete release (including a confidentiality provision) and dismissal of the case with each party to bear their own fees and costs.”  Thereafter, on November 1, 2017, the parties attended mediation, at which Plaintiff’s counsel made a counter demand.

On November 10, 2017, Defendants’ insurer’s claims specialist called Mr. Leslie’s counsel directly and left a voicemail message in which he discussed Mr. Leslie’s most recent demand to settle the case and stated, “I’m the money guy calling you directly,” “you can call me directly,” and “you don’t need to go through my defense counsel.”  He further stated, “deal with me directly on negotiations, and we can take out the middleman.”

As trial approached, Mr. Leslie’s health declined, due to issues unrelated to his injuries. Mr. Leslie provided authority to settle his case for $1,100,000.00.  Following Mr. Leslie’s grant of authority to settle, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke to Defendants’ insurer’s claim specialist three times, on December 19, 2017. During the third call a verbal settlement of the case was reached where Defendants (and their insurer) would pay $1,150,000 to settle the case in exchange for a release and dismissal. During the call, the claims specialist deferred to defense counsel regarding to whom the check would be addressed.

The next day, on December 20, 2017, defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel to express his understanding that settlement had been reached and the parties discussed to whom the check would be made payable.

A written memorialization of the settlement (a release) would be sent by defense counsel for Mr. Leslie to sign. Shortly thereafter, on December 20, 2017, an Arnold Law Firm staff member emailed defense counsel a W-9. Plaintiff’s counsel called Mr. Leslie and informed him that the case had settled and sent an email to law firm staff, stating the case was settled and to stop any pending vendor orders.

Early in the morning, on December 21, 2017, Mr. Leslie’s attorney sent an email to defense counsel (and cc’ed counsel for the other parties in the consolidated cases) providing notification of the settlement between Mr. Leslie and Defendants.

Mr. Leslie Passes Away, And Defendants Refuse To Honor The Oral Settlement

Unfortunately, Mr. Leslie unexpectedly passed away, on December 21, 2017, without having had an opportunity to sign the written memorialization of the settlement. Upon learning of Mr. Leslie’s death, Defendants refused to honor the settlement agreement, claiming that Mr. Leslie’s personal injury case was now, at best, limited to the $105,000.00 in medical expenses that were paid by Medicare, because pre-death pain and suffering damages were no longer recoverable.

A probate was opened, and the Court appointed private fiduciary, Kathryn Cain, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Leslie. The Probate Court granted Ms. Cain special powers to sign and maintain representation with the Arnold Law Firm and to proceed with finalizing the settlement or pursuing additional litigation, if necessary.

The Estate of William Leslie Files Suit And Prevails On Summary Judgment

Meanwhile, Defendants continued to refuse to honor the settlement. In May of 2018, The Arnold Law Firm filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Defendants, on behalf of the Estate of William Leslie. The Hon. Robert Hight (Ret) was appointed as special master to govern discovery proceedings. The Arnold Law Firm brought in associate counsel, Hansen, Kohls, Sommer & Jacob, LLP, to assist in the prosecution of the breach of contract case.

Following depositions of Plaintiff’s counsel, Defense Counsel, and the claims specialist, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that, as a matter of law, the undisputed facts prove that Defendants breached the parties’ verbal settlement agreement. Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, in an attempt to dispose of the Breach of Contract action.

The court ruled on the motions for summary judgment in June 2021. It denied Defendants’ motion and agreed with Plaintiff that the undisputed facts proved that an oral settlement agreement had been reached in the amount of $1,150,000.00. It further ruled that Defendants breached that agreement by failing to perform.

The court later granted Plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgement interest, in the amount of $361,068.44, and added that amount to the $1,150,000.00 for breach of contract damages. In August of 2021, final judgment was entered for a total amount of 1,511,068.44.

College student Mackenzie D. was driving home on Interstate 80 in her Toyota Camry sedan from Reno, Nevada, when a snow storm began. The 19-year-old slowed to carefully follow the vehicles in front of her.

Just west of Donner Pass, a big rig had stopped in the lane, instead of pulling over to the shoulder and putting on hazard lights. Due to lack of visibility and road conditions, 19-year-old Mackenzie failed to see the commercial truck was parked and collided with it.

Mackenzie’s car was demolished. She was pinned in her vehicle until first responders were able to pull her from the passenger side of the car. Mackenzie suffered an array of extensive injuries, including collapsed lungs, a broken wrist and hand, spinal damage, and facial fractures, requiring multiple reconstructive surgeries and permanent eye injury.

However, the police report found Mackenzie at fault, and the insurance company denied her claim. The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm realized that the liability was not entirely clear or one-sided. Thorough investigation of the incident demonstrated negligence on behalf of the commercial truck driver, even though Mackenzie had run into the rig.

With this evidence, the Arnold Law Firm settled her case for the $1,000,000 policy limit.

One balmy night in May, 36 year-old Virginia W. fell asleep on a sidewalk in downtown Sacramento. She had been homeless for several years.

At about 9:00 am the next morning, Virginia’s life would take an even more devastating turn as a semi-truck and tractor trailer recklessly drove onto the very sidewalk where she was sleeping, crushing both of her legs.

Witnesses called for paramedics as Virginia lost consciousness from the pain and blood loss. Bones in both legs were shattered, requiring multiple extensive surgeries. Physicians remain concerned that she may ultimately need one or both limbs amputated.

Virginia pulled through, needing life-long medical care for her permanent injuries and diminished capacity. Her case required very special assistance, given she had no friends or family in California to assist her and just one family member in Idaho.

It is wrong when someone’s negligence injures another person. At the Arnold Law Firm, the rights of our clients are paramount, regardless of their financial standing. Taking cases on contingency allows us to serve people who need our help the most, like Virginia.

Our legal team worked tirelessly to accommodate Virginia’s special circumstances and obtain the justice she deserved. In just two months, the Arnold Law Firm settled her case for the policy limit of $1,000,000 to fund the care she needs.

A commercial truck and trailer made an abrupt wide turn into the path of a 24-year-old motorcyclist. The resulting collision sent Justin to the hospital with a collapsed lung, multiple fractured bones and a traumatic brain injury.

Justin’s mother realized that her son needed legal help. While he was still in a coma, she sought representation for him from several area attorneys. She was turned down each time. Justin’s case had two challenges: He was an uninsured rider, and the accident report contained some ambiguity with liability details.

Fortunately, Justin’s mother contacted the Arnold Law Firm. Our investigation team worked hard to resolve the liability questions and secure the facts and evidence. Our experienced attorneys saw that the truck driver’s negligence, not the riders lack of insurance, caused the incident and the resulting life-altering injuries. Fourteen months after the accident, the Arnold Law Firm obtained a settlement for the commercial policy limit of $1 million for Justin, so he can continue with the necessary care and rehabilitation he needs.

The Arnold Law Firm obtained a $900,000 result after a railing gave way and caused a serious injury to those involved

Thirteen-year-old Nate G. and his friend were walking to the park one summer afternoon.

As they approached the intersection to cross Bruceville Road, the middle-school students encountered a length of temporary fencing that abruptly blocked the sidewalk, jutting into the roadway. The improperly fenced and inadequately signed construction zone forced pedestrians to cross the road about 30 feet south of the crosswalk area.

Nate’s friend stepped into the roadway first. A car that entered the intersection saw the boys, stopped, and gestured for them to cross. His friend made it safely to the median, but a motorcycle sped around the stopped car, striking Nate.

He was transported to the emergency room by ambulance. The teen athlete’s tibia and fibula were shattered, requiring extensive surgery and orthopedic plates. Just two days after he came home from the hospital, Nate fell while attempting to push up on his walker. He hit his head, resulting in stitches over his left eye.

Nate’s case involved highly complex, overlapping liability issues with multiple negligent parties.

The motorcycle driver’s insurance coverage had minimum bodily injury limits of $15,000 – a fraction of the bills accrued from Nate’s medical care. Because the fencing impeding pedestrian passage was related to a new light rail station being built, a claim was filed with the local public transportation provider. The claim was rejected.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm proceeded with a suit against the motorcycle driver, Sacramento Regional Transit, and the construction project contractors.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm settled the case just before trial for a combined total of $765,000.

Defendant changed lanes when exiting freeway and sideswiped Plaintiff in right-most lane. There was visible damage to the vehicles that was limited to scrapes and cosmetic damage. Defendant denied liability and possibility of injury given the forces involved.  At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was an unemployed disabled chemical operator with a years-long history of back and knee problems with multiple surgeries. Plaintiff had roughly 3 years of no back symptoms before the collision, and thereafter had ER visit, MD consultations, and physical therapy at Kaiser. Six months post-collision, Plaintiff had the first of three lumbar fusion surgeries. The defense contended that these were due to degenerative conditions. The treating surgeon had opined in deposition that Plaintiff was “likely” to have required surgery even without the collision, but testified at trial that the surgery was “likely” 15-20 years in the future absent the collision.

Our attorneys reached a $500,000 settlement on behalf of two injured landscape workers whose work truck was struck from behind while they were spraying herbicide on a median on Freeport Boulevard in Sacramento. The defendant driver, who was insured by Allstate, denied liability throughout the case. However, when Allstate realized that the Arnold Law Firm was intent on proceeding to trial on behalf of its injured clients, changed its offer from nothing to $500,000 overnight and settled the case just 5 days prior to beginning trial. Now we will proceed against the truck owner’s underinsured motorist policy for the remainder of its insurance coverage.

Terri J. loved her job as a detective police sergeant for a rural community in central California. She hoped to retire from the force one day to further enjoy her active lifestyle, including travel and scuba diving.

As part of a home improvement project, Terri purchased laminate flooring from a major flooring retailer – a product she believed to be both safe and durable.

After the laminate flooring was installed in her house, Terri began to experience respiratory symptoms. She didn’t connect her increasing health issues to the product at that time.

Terri’s health and quality of life declined rapidly without explanation. She experienced frequent fatigue, headaches, sore throat, nausea, and sometimes vomiting. She also developed a constant cough and sustained damage to her vocal cords. Her immune system became compromised.

Abnormal pulmonary function, pneumonitis, and oxygen deficiency eventually forced Terri to resign from her career. Her reduced capacity left her unable to pursue the activities she loved, and she grew depressed.

After three years of serious lung disease, Terri happened to watch a news report about high formaldehyde levels found in the same laminate product she had installed in her home. It was then that she suspected her flooring may be problematic.

It was. Test results of Terri’s flooring far exceeded the limits set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), even after several years of off-gassing. Doctors confirmed that her battle with lung disease was caused by chronic formaldehyde exposure.

Terri had her flooring replaced. Her symptoms improved after the toxic laminate product was removed, but not completely. Her lungs had sustained permanent damage.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Laminate flooring is typically made of pressed composite wood, held together with glue or resin. Formaldehyde is a common ingredient found at low levels in the glue that holds together the pressed wood in laminate flooring. However, at high levels, the formaldehyde is released as a harmful gas that emanates from the flooring over time.

The national flooring retailer that Terri made her purchase from supplied and sold laminate flooring products that contained toxic levels of formaldehyde in excess of CARB limits, despite advertising that their products met applicable regulations and stringent quality standards.

Initially, the retailer claimed that they had no record of Terri as a customer. Later, they acknowledged her purchase, but stated there was no reason to remove the installed product, because that they had tested numerous samples of their flooring products and found them to be safe.

As nationwide reports of the toxicity of the product surfaced, Terri’s case became entangled in a class action suit that would have failed to address her significant personal health damages. The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm worked to remove her bodily injury case from the class action, securing a settlement for $500,000.

Wrongful Termination (Retaliation) against Bay Area repair shop after non-union employee client was fired for expressing a workplace health and safety concern to a co-worker – Settled $490,000.

James C. was heading to the store on a winter afternoon in his Isuzu Rodeo SUV. He stopped behind another vehicle at a red light at Mack Road. When the light turned green, the car in front of him proceeded. James continued to wait for three pedestrians who had entered the crosswalk in front of his car, intending to make a right turn when the roadway was clear.

A utility truck suddenly rear-ended his vehicle hard. James was shaken and dizzy, with neck and back pain. His vehicle didn’t appear to have significant damage, so he went on to meet other obligations after the police report was completed.

The utility truck sustained significant visible damage to its front end and had to be towed away.

James’ neck and back pain worsened, requiring urgent care a few days after the accident. He was treated with pain medication, physical therapy, and joint injections. Despite treatment, he had persistent stabbing pain down his neck and shoulder, with numbness down his right arm, and lumbar pain that radiated through his left hip and down his leg.

James was unable to perform his job in construction due to debilitating pain. He eventually had to have artificial disc replacement surgery on his cervical spine.

The lack of visible damage to James’ SUV was puzzling, given the extent of his injuries. The legal team at the Arnold Law firm had a technical expert evaluate the vehicle. The spare tire stored on the outside of the tailgate of the SUV had reduced the visible damage to the vehicle. There was actually significant frame damage in keeping with the level of injuries James had sustained.

The negligent driver refused to admit full liability, but the company offered a settlement of $100,000 — an amount insufficient for covering James’ mounting medical bills and loss of income.

We rejected the offer and pushed forward to litigate. Shortly before trial, the Arnold Law Firm settled the case for $400,000.

Don F. was a passenger in his girlfriend’s Toyota 4Runner, heading down Broadway on an August afternoon. Suddenly, a Cadillac Escalade attempted to make an illegal U-turn, swerving directly into the path of the 4Runner. The Escalade slammed into the passenger side of the 4Runner, causing substantial damage to the vehicle.

Paramedics elected to transport Don to the hospital for severe neck pain and shoulder pain that radiated down his right arm. Police were called to the scene, finding the Escalade driver fully at fault.

Despite intensive treatment and physical therapy, Don’s neck pain worsened, causing loss of strength down his shoulders, arms, and hands. He was unable to sleep due to intolerable pain and could no longer work a full day as a technology professional. His neck injury now required fusion surgery on his cervical spine to reduce pressure on his nerves and spinal cord.

When Don contacted the Arnold Law Firm, he was frustrated and in constant pain. He was discouraged both by lack of communication and progress by the first firm he had hired and by the life-changing impact his neck injury had on his once-active life.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm aggressively pursued policy limits of $100,000, which the insurance company failed to accept. We proceeded to trial, resulting in a judgment of $380,000 — more than three times policy limits.

Linda was injured when she climbed down out of a truck, falling backwards five feet into a concrete pit, seriously injuring her neck and shoulder. Linda suffered a damaged cervical disc and underwent a fusion surgery. The defendant construction company denied liability and blamed Linda for her fall, claiming she was not paying attention to where she was going. The Arnold Law Firm retained construction experts and proved that the defendants had created a dangerous condition during the construction project by not allowing or supplying sufficient safeguards in and around the concrete pit. The investigation and preparation by the firm allowed Linda to recover her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Linda obtained a settlement in the amount of $325,000.

On a warm August evening, Ray G. and his family were driving home from a school sporting event. As his Ford F250 pickup traveled through an intersection on Washington Blvd in Roseville, California, a Toyota Corolla compact sedan ran the red light and slammed into the driver’s side of Ray’s truck.

The driver of the sedan failed to brake at all prior to the collision. The impact of the Corolla caused the heavier, larger truck to spin until it struck a curb.

The Corolla driver appeared to have been using her mobile phone at the time of the accident and admitted that she was not paying attention while driving. Law enforcement found her to be solely at fault for the accident.

Both cars sustained major damage had to be towed from the scene. Ray’s truck sustained over $10,000 in damage, including shearing of the rear axle shaft, and took nearly three months to repair.

Ray suffered persistent pain in his neck that traveled down to the center of his back, as well as lower back pain that radiated down his left leg, causing muscle spasms.

Despite constant pain, Ray continued to work. As a FedEx driver, he wasn’t able to take an hour or two off for treatment – for each appointment, regardless of length, he had to take an entire day off. Delivery drivers can’t interrupt or shorten the scheduled full-day route.

Ray had already exhausted his medical leave from a previous injury and didn’t want to lose his job. A few months before the accident with the Toyota Corolla, he had been in another collision that had also injured his back. Ray had recently completed treatment for the previous accident and had been cleared to return to work.

Increasing pain and discomfort interfered with Ray’s ability to perform his job, where he had to lift heavy objects and drive for long periods of time. He was unable to take pain medication or muscle relaxers while performing his job duties.

After nearly two years of sporadic physical therapy and steroid injections failed to resolve his injury, spinal fusion surgery became Ray’s last option to reduce his pain.

Despite clear liability, the insurance companies used the gaps in Ray’s limited treatment and previous accident to dispute the cause and extent of his injuries. They claimed that his need for surgery was not related to the collision. The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm pushed back, finally settling at policy limits for a combined $300,000.

On November 8, 2018, Anna* and her family fled their home in response to the Camp Fire mandatory evacuation. The massive fire destroyed more than 18,000 homes, displacing 50,000 residents in the town of Paradise, California, and surrounding areas.

They didn’t have friends or relatives in neighboring cities to stay with and soon discovered that nearby refugee camps were unable to accommodate Anna’s special health and mobility needs. Anna had previously suffered a spinal cord injury that rendered her an incomplete paraplegic, requiring the use of a wheelchair.

Anna, along with her husband and 5-year-old autistic son, continued to drive further in search of lodging, but failed to find a wheelchair-accessible vacancy until they reached a town that was 90-miles from home.

Just a few days later, Anna and other refugees met with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) personnel in the motel parking lot to learn about emergency benefits available through the government.

On the way back to her room, Anna encountered an elderly woman using a walker, who asked if she could pass in front of Anna into the motel laundry room. Naturally, Anna agreed and moved her wheelchair back a few inches to allow the other woman space to proceed across safely.

As Anna started to wheel backwards, her right wheel rolled into an open sewage drain along the laundry room wall, tipping her chair over. Anna fell hard into the 4.5-foot-long ditch, causing injuries that further impacted her mobility and exposed her to contaminated drainage water that resulted in a dangerous infection.

Being a place of public accommodation, motels have a duty to provide a safe environment for their guests as defined by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The drainage ditch that caused Anna’s fall was not in compliance with applicable regulations that define the dimensions of ground surface openings and their direction related to the dominant direction of travel.

The motel has since installed a high-visibility safety cover over the drain.

Despite the clear violation of ADA requirements and damages the fall had on Anna’s physical and mental health, the motel was reluctant to take responsibility for the incident and offered an initial settlement of just $25,000.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm fought back, proving how her injuries were caused by the property owner’s negligence and unsafe conditions at the property. Anna’s final settlement was $275,000 – more than ten times the motel’s original offer.

*name changed for confidentiality

Kimberly and Brian, both established professionals in Sacramento, were excited about moving into a charming yellow house in one of the best neighborhoods in the area.

They had agreed to a lease-to-own arrangement that allocated $3,500 per month toward rent and an additional $2,000 per month toward a refundable deposit for the potential purchase of the property at the end of the three-year contract. If they decided to buy the house, their $72,000 ($2,000 x 36 months) would be applied toward the purchase price. If they decided not to buy the house, the $72,000 would be returned to them.

At the end of the three-year lease, the house appraised at $895,000, but the property owner wanted Kimberly and Brian to pay $1,000,000 instead. The couple decided not to purchase the house at the inflated price and requested their $72,000 deposit back.

The property owner refused, now stating that the entire monthly payment ($3,500 rent + $2,000 deposit per month) was the rental rate for the house, and none of it was refundable.

After attempting to reason with the property owner directly, Kimberly and Brian finally proceeded with a lawsuit. The property owner filed a cross complaint.

Represented by the Arnold Law Firm in a 10-day trial, Kimberly and Brian were awarded $72,000 in damages, plus over $200,000 in interest, legal costs and attorney fees. The jury found the property owner engaged in fraud and breach of contract.

Matthew B. contacted the Arnold Law Firm after consulting with multiple attorneys in the Sacramento area, including another major personal injury firm and an attorney specializing in motorcycle accidents. His case was rejected by other attorneys due to complexity with liability.

As the rider in a car vs. motorcycle collision, Matthew suffered significant injuries to his spine, head and arm. He spent several months trying to find legal representation, waiting four months for one firm to simply review his case.

Matthew called us frustrated, in pain, and discouraged. Our legal staff listened to his story and researched the accident details, determining that he had a valid case worthy of pursuit.
Less than one month later, the Arnold Law Firm obtained a policy limit settlement of $250,000 for Matthew to help with his medical costs and lost wages.

An Arnold Law Firm attorney tried a mild brain injury case to verdict in Sacramento County and received a verdict of nearly $204,000 when the joint settlement offers from the two defendants was only $35,000. The client was injured when she slipped and fell forward in a puddle of gasoline at a gas station in the Natomas area and struck her chin on the concrete, resulting in a minor traumatic brain injury. The manufacturer of the gas nozzle, Franklin Fueling Systems, Inc, was sued for products liability when its gas nozzle failed to shut off automatically as designed, causing the gasoline to overflow from the client’s full gas tank onto the ground. The gas station owner settled his portion of the case prior to trial. Franklin Fueling Systems informally offered $10,000 to settle the case prior to trial but the client’s medical bills alone were approximately $12,000. Once the post-trial issues were resolved, Franklin’s financial liability in this case was at least nine times what they offered in attempted settlement.

Wrongful Termination and Retaliation against vocational school after employee reported potential fraud by the CEO to the Board of Directors –  Settled $200,000.

Mr. E was on his way to work one very ordinary fall morning when an inattentive driver ran a red light, collided with his vehicle, and changed his life forever. In that moment, although he didn’t realize it at the time, a chain of events was set into motion that affected every aspect of his life: his marriage, his career, his finances, and, worst of all, his health and his ability to earn a living. After the smoke cleared, literally and figuratively, he found himself in a situation with which he was utterly unfamiliar. Insurance companies called him immediately and, in friendly, helpful tones, requested recorded statements.

He received medical bills that were represented to be liens in the mail that demanded immediate payment of large sums. The teenage girl (driving with a learner’s permit only) who had struck his vehicle, now represented by her insurance company, denied that the collision was her fault and, instead, claimed that Mr. E had caused this accident. Worst of all, Mr. E’s neck was causing him severe pain of a type and intensity that he had never experienced before. The attorneys at the Arnold Law Firm were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to represent Mr. E for his injuries and other damages. Following their handling of Mr. E’s case, all of his outstanding medical bills were resolved, the defendant admitted that the collision was her fault, and a settlement of the defendant’s automobile insurance policy limits of $200,000.00 was obtained. Although Mr. E wishes this accident had not occurred, he is satisfied with the professional services provided by the Arnold Law Firm.

Wrongful Termination (Disability Discrimination) against car dealership after employee fired just two days after returning from an approved medical leave –  Settled $168,000

The Arnold Law Firm settled a case for $150,000 against a major grocery store chain for injuries related to a slip and fall inside one of its stores in Sacramento. Client Jane Doe, who was accompanied by her husband, John Doe, was walking down an aisle in the grocery store when she slipped on an unidentified oily substance and suffered an injury to her hamstring and low back. She was taken by ambulance to a local hospital and was then bed-ridden for several weeks and treated thereafter. The grocery store chain denied any liability for the incident, claiming that Jane Doe wasn’t watching where she was walking, that defendant didn’t know who put the substance there nor how long it had been there, and that defendant had no notice of the dangerous condition before the incident. When it was clear that the Arnold firm was willing and ready for trial, the case settled on the eve of trial.

Wrongful Termination against large healthcare provider after high administrative employee fired based on a secretly recorded off-duty political discussion with a co-worker –  Settled $103,000.

Vickie O. was commuting to work in her convertible Mazda Miata, top down, on a beautiful spring morning. As she approached the Watt Avenue I-80 freeway on-ramp, the vehicle directly in front of her stopped to make way for a pedestrian in the designated crosswalk. Vickie came to a complete stop.

Suddenly, she heard the sound of squealing tires behind her. Unable to avoid a rear-end collision and concerned for the safety of the pedestrian should her car be pushed forward, Vickie pressed hard on her brakes and braced for the impact.

A 1990 Ford Crown Victoria sedan collided with the back bumper of her compact car, jerking Vickie’s head and torso back and forth. While the driver was operating the vehicle without a valid license, he did have insurance with the minimum policy limits allowed in California.

Despite the significant size difference between the two vehicles, visible property damage was minimal and seemed limited to the Miata’s bumper. There was no notable damage to the Ford. An expert inspection later confirmed structural damage to the Miata, including damage to the hard top mechanism.

Vickie suffered significant neck, back, and shoulder injuries resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in medical imaging, physical therapy, and surgery. She also cracked a tooth, requiring extensive dental work.

The insurance company for the negligent driver accepted liability, but refused to pay for property damages beyond replacing the Miata’s bumper. For her bodily injuries, they offered Vickie a shockingly low $500 settlement.

Vickie realized this was an insulting offer and decided to pursue fair compensation. Being intelligent and articulate, she researched the process, collected documentation, and wrote assertive letters. After months of frustrating effort, the insurance company still refused to budge from offers that were a fraction of her actual damages.

Wisely, Vickie contacted the Arnold Law Firm. Our legal team filed a lawsuit against the negligent driver, obtaining policy limits, then moved forward with an underinsured motorist claim. The combined settlement was a whopping $102,000 more than her original $500 offer.

Juliana was driving to her home in Paradise, California one summer afternoon, when she noticed the lights and siren of an emergency vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. She safely pulled over and stopped as per motor vehicle code.

Unfortunately, the driver of a Chevy Blazer behind her failed to notice traffic accommodating the emergency vehicle and crashed into the back of Juliana’s Honda Accord. Her car sustained significant damage. Juliana suffered neck and back pain that persisted despite medical treatment.

The insurance company for the at-fault driver sent Juliana a $2,000 check as a settlement for her injuries. Wisely, she did not cash the check. The insurance company later verbally promised $3,000, which they did not fulfill.

With medical bills mounting, Julianna followed up with the defendant’s insurance company and was told that it was too late to make a medical claim and that the original $2,000 check was no longer valid — effectively offering $0 for her claim.

Fortunately, Juliana contacted the Arnold Law Firm. Our experienced legal team obtained a total settlement of $100,000 for her damages.

The Arnold Law Firm settled a case for the defendant’s policy limit of $100,000 for a client who injured her knee (requiring surgery) after stepping into a utility box on a homeowner’s driveway. The client, Jane Doe, was a housekeeper who came to defendant’s home to clean it for the Thanksgiving holiday. The client’s van was parked on the homeowner’s driveway. While loading her cleaning materials into her van after completing the project, the client stepped into a utility vault that had been left uncovered and had been made part of the homeowner’s driveway during an expansion of it by the prior homeowner. The homeowner’s insurance company denied liability and refused to offer any settlement money. After completing the depositions of both the homeowner and the client, as well as an eyewitness, the insurance company tendered the $100,000 policy limit to the client. The utility company also contributed an amount toward the settlement as well.

Client, nine weeks pregnant, was on the way to her mother-in-law’s house when she was rear-ended at a red light by the defendant. The client’s vehicle sustained significant rearend damage as a result. She suffered a concussion, headaches, a neck strain and disk damage in her low back. The defendant’s insurance company paid their policy limit of $15,000. Client had uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on her own automobile insurance policy, so an underinsured motorist action was opened to pursue the additional $85,000 available. Client’s own insurance company argued that she was not injured. After the depositions of the Kaiser doctors were completed by Client’s insurance company, Client’s insurance company admitted they were wrong and paid the additional $85,000. The Arnold Law Firm settled the case for the $100,000 of available insurance.

One afternoon in June, 25-year-old Tessa C. and her college roommate were returning from a visit with her mother, driving along Highway 20 in Yuba County in her Honda Civic. Tessa had recently graduated from CSU Chico and was looking forward to a trip to Europe, then attending the police academy.

The driver of a Toyota Corolla traveling in the opposite direction of the two-lane highway became distracted and drifted off into the gravel shoulder. Realizing he was no longer on the road, the driver sharply overcorrected – veering into oncoming traffic. Tessa attempted to swerve out of the way, but the Corolla struck the driver’s side of her vehicle at approximately 60 mph.

Tessa’s airbag deployed, and her car spun until it came to rest at the highway shoulder. Both vehicles sustained major damage; Tessa’s Civic was totaled.

Tessa lost consciousness for several minutes and was transported from the accident scene to the hospital by ambulance. She suffered a concussion, lacerations, extensive bruising, and significant back and neck pain. Even after months of physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, pain management, and other medical treatment, Tessa had chronic neck, hip, and back discomfort with numbness, muscle spasms, and pain radiating down her leg, as well as headaches, memory loss, and sleep issues.

Once an active, athletic student who enjoyed hiking and other outdoor activities, Tessa was now unable to lift more than five pounds, unable to run, and unable to read or view electronic screens without difficulty. Her plans for traveling through Europe and police academy training had to be cancelled.

As her injuries persisted and her medical bills mounted, Tessa sought legal representation. Her first attorney advised her to accept a $40,000 settlement offer, which failed to adequately cover her damages. When she hesitated to accept the offer, the law firm withdrew from her case just one month before the statute of limitations ran. Tessa rushed to file her complaint in pro per (without an attorney), which was rejected due to a clerical error.

Fortunately, Tessa contacted the Arnold Law Firm. Our legal team determined that a lawsuit could still be filed, due to extensions related to the pandemic. We promptly filed her complaint and obtained policy limits of $100,000 within a few weeks.

The owner of a 3-year-old male pitbull became extremely afraid of the dog when it bit him. The report of the attack showed the owner thought the dog should be euthanized. But instead, the dog was left in its yard.

The very next day, a woman who rented a room on the property arrived home. She considered herself friends with the dog as she entered the yard. But the feeling of friendship quickly evaporated when the dog sunk its teeth into the flesh below the woman’s right breast. The dog then savagely tore into both of the woman’s hands and arms. The woman was rushed to a nearby hospital. The worst bites were to her left hand, her dominant hand. She was in excruciating pain for weeks afterward. With both hands bandaged, she had to be fed, clothed and bathed by her boyfriend.

A year and a half after the attack, both of the woman’s hands were scarred and her left hand was numb in places, the fine motor skills permanently impaired. Worse, she was now extremely fearful of all dogs. The attack was a horrifying event that will impact the rest of her life.

After much hard work and negotiation by Attorneys at the Arnold Law Firm, the case was settled for a confidential amount which was sufficient to compensate the woman for her terrible injuries.

A volunteer at Senior Gleaners was helping out on the loading dock of the warehouse when he was struck by a forklift. The forklift operator knocked the man down and rolled on top of him. He then backed off him, compounding the injury. Senior Gleaners claimed immunity. The injured volunteer came to the Arnold Law Firm seeking a reasonable settlement for the disabling injuries he suffered, which prevented him from working in the future.

The Arnold Law Firm represented the volunteer and pleaded his case for general damages, past and future medical costs, and past and future lost earnings. After extensive work on behalf of the injured man, an agreement was reached with the insurance company that paid the man a monthly income for the rest of his life. In addition, the monthly payments were guaranteed for 15 years to the man’s heirs in the event of his untimely death.