The result of any case depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case; and case results listed below do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the this firm or any of it’s attorneys or associates.
John Denove tried a case in Santa Monica. The client was injured in a car accident. She had injuries to her low back and is a candidate for back surgery. Click here to see some of the demonstrative evidence that was used during trial.
Shane Hapuarachy tried a medical malpractice case in Torrance involving a client that underwent an unnecessary hysterectomy and received a verdict that was ten times the amount offered by the defense.
John Rowell successfully settled a product liability case against a major automobile manufacturer. John contended the manufacturer should have installed an air-bag side drop down curtain system as standard equipment in a vehicle which rolled over. John’s client had suffered serious injuries to her head and neck when her vehicle rolled over. John contended the injuries would not have occurred if the drop down curtain and roll-over sensor had been installed in the vehicle as standard equipment. Using the manufacturers’ own internal documents, John was able to show the manufacturer was going to make the system standard equipment, but at the last minute determined to increase profit by making it optional instead. After taking numerous depositions of the manufacturer’s engineers and high level employees, John obtained documents and testimony which demonstrated that the system would have cost about $150 per vehicle to install as standard equipment and that the manufacturer was charging over $800 to have it installed as an option. John was also able to show that the manufacturer was offering the same system as standard equipment on this model vehicle sold overseas during the same model years.
John Denove and recently settled a case involving a broad side collision between two cars. The Plaintiff hurt her back in the collision. The defense refused to admit liability and claimed the Plaintiff’s injury was all preexisting from a prior back surgery and lingering pain decades before the collision. The case was referred to Mr. Denove by another Plaintiff’s attorney. They were able to show the collision caused new injury to the Plaintiff’s back requiring a new surgery. They were also able to show the Plaintiff developed a chronic pain syndrome following the collision. The insurance company decided to settle the case on the first day of trial after Jack and Bill took the defense experts depositions.
John Denove represented a young girl who was injured during a cheerleading stunt. She was released from the hospital after a short stay for observation, and was then brought back to the hospital where she underwent emergency brain surgery for a large subdural hematoma and brain herniation. Mr. Denove argued that the hospital should not have released the girl without a CT scan, which would have indicated that the hematoma had grown, and surgery would be performed to prevent a brain herniation. The young girl is now left with severe brain damage, including cognitive and motor deficits. She lives with her parents and requires continuous attendant care. The hospital settled the case prior to trial.
John Rowell and John Denove settled a product liability case during trial. The defective product was a tire that lost its tread causing the pick-up truck to run off the road and roll over. The driver and one of the passengers sustained serious injuries. Mr. Rowell argued that the tire was both defectively designed and defectively manufactured. He also argued that the tire should have included a nylon cap, but did not.
John Denove represented an elderly lady who tripped on the damaged flooring at a Starbucks in Pasadena. She fractured her femur and underwent surgery. Following surgery, she suffered a stroke. Starbucks denied any responsibility; and further denied knowledge that the floor was damaged or dangerous. During trial, Mr. Denove produced documents from Starbucks’ contractor which established that Starbucks had been warned seven months prior to the accident that the flooring needed to be replaced. Mr. Denove called a health inspector from the City of Pasadena, who testified she had cited Starbucks for the dangerous condition one hour before the client tripped. The judge ruled that Mr. Denove presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to decide whether Starbucks acted with a conscious disregard of the customer’s safety and whether punitive damages should be awarded. Starbucks settled the case on the last day of trial.
Click to enlarge the image to see some of the exhibits that were used during the trial.
Wilkie Cheong and John Denove represented a client who was being sued for intentional interference with contractual relations. The plaintiffs alleged the actions of the defendant interfered with their contract to merge two corporations. The plaintiffs alleged that their economic damage was 14 million dollars. Mr. Cheong and Mr. Denove were successful in proving that the defendant did nothing wrong and that the plaintiffs were entitled to no damages.
Click to enlarge the image to see one of the exhibits that was used during the trial.
John Denove represented a young lady who was injured in a motor vehicle collision. The case was tried in Ventura. He was able to prove that the collision injured her cervical spine requiring trigger point injections and epidural steroid injections. The jury awarded her damages for her past medical expenses, for her future cervical surgery, her loss of earnings and her pain and suffering.
John Denove recently settled a motor vehicle accident case. Our client alleged that the defendant trucking company negligently maintained its trailer causing a wheel to come off striking the client’s vehicle. Two years following the collision, the client underwent back surgery.
The law firm Cheong, Denove, Rowell, Bennett & Hapuarachy provides legal services to the cities of Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Rancho Cucamonga, Anaheim, Long Beach, Newport Beach, Oceanside, Temecula, Murrieta, Glendale, Santa Barbara, Oxnard, Bakersfield, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Chula Vista, Inglewood, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Van Nuys, Orange County, San Diego County, Imperial County, Kern County, Ventura County, San Bernardino County and Riverside County, California.
The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational use only, and are in no way intended to constitute legal advice of this law firm or any of its attorneys. This website is considered attorney advertising.
Our website has been designed for informational purposes and should not cause you to form an expectation about the results that you may achieve based upon your potential legal claim or issue.
Los Angeles, CA