Hon. Gregory Keosian (Ret.)

• Plaintiff sought payment of invoices for goods delivered. Defendant filed cross-complaint contending goods were defective and sought off-set.
• Plaintiff invested proceeds from a personal injury recovery with Defendant in a house-flipping business. After several successful flips, the next few are unsuccessful, resulting in the total loss of Plaintiff’s investment.
• Owners of a successful restaurant chain filed suit against their children for fraudulently siphoning money and assets from the business. Defendants contend that they were running the business and Plaintiffs had ceded all authority to them.

• Police Officers, who were responding to a call of a man with a weapon, shot and severely wounded Plaintiff after he pointed his arms in the direction of the police officers in a shooting stance, was told to drop the weapon, and refused.
• Plaintiff alleges unreasonable force used to restrain her after police officers responded to a report of a stabbing at her residence. Plaintiff allegedly refused to allow the officers entrance to the residence but told them she knew where the perpetrator was.

• World-renowned apparel company contracted with landowner builder for the construction of a multi-million-dollar state-of-the art photography studio. Plaintiff contended defects in workmanship and delays caused substantial damages. Defendant contends Plaintiff was the cause of the delays.
• Plaintiffs were real estate agents and developers who purchased a home and spent significant sums to remodel it. Solar panels were improperly installed on the roof, which led to leaks and hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to the floors, drywall, and doors.
• Plaintiff homeowners of a tract of homes contended defective workmanship resulting in leaky windows and other defects in a suit against the general contractor and numerous subcontractors.

• Use of expert deposition testimony in a motion for summary judgment is prohibited if party seeking admission of testimony failed to timely designate the expert pursuant to the discovery statutes. (Perry v. Bakewell (2017) 2 Cal.5th 536.)
• Deposition testimony is not admissible against a party to subsequent litigation under Evidence Code, Section 1291(a)(2) unless the party against whom the testimony is offered had the “right and opportunity” to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive similar to tht which the objecting party would have in the later trial. Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867.

• Plaintiff sought damages for elder abuse and wrongful death after her mother, a resident of a skilled nursing facility, choked on a sandwich when she had been placed on dietary restrictions requiring a liquid diet by her doctor. Plaintiff alleged the facility attempted to cover up the incident and notified Plaintiff that her mother had died of natural causes.
• Plaintiffs, son and daughter of deceased, alleged elder abuse and wrongful death when their mother, who had incurred severe pressure sores at the hospital, was transferred to an assisted living facility. The pressure sores went untreated, ultimately leading to infection and ultimately death.

• Plaintiff, a former electrical mechanic with the DWP, was allegedly discriminated against due to an injury sustained on the job, was not provided accommodation, and was terminated when he sought medical leave.
• Plaintiff, a customer service manager at a major department store, was terminated after he assisted another employee in preparing a claim for sexual harassment and retaliation against the company.
• Plaintiff alleged age discrimination when a new supervisor of a county facility reorganized responsibilities and delegated some of Plaintiff’s duties to younger and newly-hired employees and denied her overtime, which was offered to the younger employees.
• Plaintiff, a county employee, alleges religious discrimination. After sustaining an injury at work, he alleges he was singled out, and denied accommodations which were routinely granted to others, not of his religious persuasion.
• Whistleblower Plaintiff, a 911 emergency operator, sought psychological treatment after handling a traumatic suicide call. After seeing the County psychologist, a co-worker asked her questions regarding her treatment. Convinced the City had violated her right to privacy under State and Federal law, she reported the breach. Plaintiff was later denied promotions which she alleged were retaliatory.

• Whistleblower Plaintiff, a police officer, claims he was removed from his position as a training officer and retaliated against for threatening to complain to State agencies that the department was violating various training regulations.

view all

• News magazine reported that a public figure was transitioning from male to female. In granting the Anti-SLAPP motion, the court found that alleging one to be transgender is not defamation per-se, and there was no evidence of damages.
• Models filed suit against a nightclub and public relations agency for misappropriation of likeness for using the models’ photographs in their advertisements without authorization.
• Published author in the entertainment industry submitted his analysis of Defendant’s IPO to the entertainment company through its website and an email to the CEO. Plaintiff contends that Defendant adopted his proposal; however, no implied contract was found as the website prohibited the emailing of proposals to the company or its executives, and further stated any such proposal would not be considered.

• Plaintiff alleged a series of breaches of the warrantee of habitability, including gas leaks, mold, and the landlord illegally living in the basement, as well as several violent confrontations with the landlord and her agent.
• Plaintiff alleged mold growth in her unit, limited to the bathroom and shower area, as well as bird droppings on her patio. Defense expert found that there were more allergens outside the unit than inside and that the issue had been remediated years earlier and was no longer existent, and that the bird droppings were of no significance.
• Plaintiff resided in an apartment unit with her minor children. They claimed the unit was uninhabitable as roaches were present and would crawl on them at night, that the plumbing was nonfunctional, and that garbage was not collected, magnifying the rodent problem, and lead paint existed in the unit.
• Over 30 units in an apartment building held a rent strike due to uninhabitable conditions. Several tenants were successful while others were not. Defendant filed a cross-complaint for the rents owing.

• A disgruntled tenant in an apartment building opened a water hose on the roof of the apartment building causing severe water damage to the building. While the insurance company paid substantial amounts for reconstruction, several items were denied resulting in a Plaintiff’s verdict.

• Plaintiff, a start-up restaurant, rented space on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles along the proposed metro line path. Plaintiff contended the road closures, construction, and limited access caused the restaurant to fail. The inverse claim was in favor of the Defendants, but a jury found in favor of Plaintiff on a negligence theory and awarded substantial damages.

• Plaintiff was a tenant in a high security apartment building which required identification and the passing through metal detectors prior to admission. Unauthorized individuals breached the entrance and security, broke into Plaintiff’s unit, robbed him and beat him badly, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. Defendants owner of building and security company settled the case for seven figures after documents revealed numerous instances of unauthorized entry.
• Plaintiff was a visitor at a Los Angeles County Beach which allowed for both swimming and surfing. LA County lifeguards had delineated boundaries by placing cones and flags on the sand which notified both swimmers and surfers of their designated areas. Plaintiff was swimming in the designated swim area when a surfer crossed into the swim zone striking the Plaintiff in the head with his board resulting in partial blindness.
• Minor plaintiffs were passengers in a van operated by a day camp. On a day trip to a camping site, the driver of the van lost control of the van, which overturned, and caught fire. Several plaintiffs were ejected from the van suffering severe lacerations while others sustained burns. Seat belts were not provided for in the van. Defendant vehicle manufacturer as well as day camp entity participated in the settlement.
• Plaintiff was the driver of a vehicle who was rear ended at a traffic light. Plaintiff had recently undergone a surgery for a meniscus tear and was undergoing physical therapy at the time of the accident. As a result of the force of the impact, Plaintiff’s knee was forced into the bottom of the dashboard re-injuring the knee, which required further medical care, above and beyond the physical therapy already prescribed. Defendant settled the case for six figures.
• Plaintiff minor was a student attending a school operated by the LAUSD. Plaintiff was sexually harassed, assaulted and molested by Defendant teacher. Defendant was seen hugging, embracing, and kissing Plaintiff in areas of the school accessible and in the view of other teachers and personnel. It was alleged that the principal should have been aware of the events and failed ton take reasonable steps to investigate. On summary judgement, triable issues of fact were found as to Defendants breaching their duty of reasonable care.

• Plaintiff sought cosmetic surgery, face lift, at Defendant’s facility. After several weeks Plaintiff discovered threads becoming visible which eventually led to infections. Defendant attempted to resolve the issues to no avail. Plaintiff’s face was left permanently disfigured, necessitating future surgeries. Plaintiff achieved a significant settlement covering her future medical expenses as well as for her pain and suffering.
• Elderly Plaintiff was recovering from hip surgery in hospital. During her stay, she contracted pneumonia and was bed-ridden for several weeks. She was eventually moved to a skilled nursing facility to recover. Prior to her moving to the facility, the hospital recorded bed sores developing on her buttocks area. During her stay at the facility, the bed sores were not addressed and worsened to the point where the infections led to sepsis and Plaintiff died. Records and testimony revealed that the nursing facility failed to review the records of the hospital and only became aware of the bedsores after the effects were irreversible. Decedent’s children settled the matter just prior to trial.
• Plaintiff alleged sexual abuse while in foster care at a private facility operated under the supervision of Los Angeles County. Suing under the theories of agency and negligence, Plaintiff settled the matter after it came to light that various complaints by the Plaintiff of the abuse were not addressed.
• In a complex torts matter, Plaintiff was a long-time employee of a manufacturing company which produced paints and stains. He had daily contact with the materials which were known to be carcinogenic. Plaintiff eventually contracted cancer and was given a reduced life expectancy. The manufacturers and various retailers had notice of the dangers in the handling of the materials and it was disputed as to whether the warnings were passed on to Plaintiff. The manufacturer and various retailers settled the case prior to trial.
• Elderly Plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk near her home in the City of Beverly Hills. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff severely broke her hand, resulting in her inability to fully use the hand. The City contended it had no notice of the dangerous condition. However, the City had made various sidewalk repairs in the vicinity, indicating that they did in fact have notice of the condition. Matter settled prior to trial.
• Plaintiff claimed she was kidnapped and held against her will and sexually assaulted for years. Though the claims were beyond the statute of limitations, the court held that Plaintiff’s memory had been repressed and thus the case was allowed to proceed.

view all

• Plaintiff, suffering from terminal cancer, alleged his contact with various stains, paints and other solvents used over his years working as a painter and employee at various facilities caused his illness. Numerous defendants resolved the matter informally.
• Plaintiff, who was employed by a manufacturer of kitchen countertops, developed a fatal illness due to his contact and working with material.