Call For A Consultation 855-997-7522
People shaking hands in office
Logo Icon Year in Review

2014 marks another great year for Poole & Shaffery. From resolving cases early on through effective motion practice to winning appeals, Poole & Shaffery has once again obtained successful results for our clients. Below is a highlight of just some of our results this year:

In David Johnson, et al. v. Armored Autogroup, Inc., et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda County, Case No. RG-13-669270), Poole & Shaffery represented a defendant that manufactured a fuel additive that the plaintiff allegedly worked with during his employment in the automotive repair industry. Of the several remaining defendants and with just days before trial, Poole & Shaffery was the only firm to obtain a dismissal in exchange for a mutual waiver of costs on behalf of its client.

In Hector Linares, et al. v. Advanced Biotech, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clarita County, Case No. BC486916), Poole & Shaffery represented several defendants consisting of manufacturers and suppliers of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl. Poole & Shaffery successfully moved for an order quashing the summons and complaint on behalf of one defendant on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant who was based in a different state. In addition, Poole & Shaffery obtained an early dismissal in exchange for a mutual waiver of costs on behalf of another defendant after Poole & Shaffery threatened to file a summary judgment motion on the ground that plaintiffs lacked any evidence that they were exposed to the client's product. Subsequently, Poole & Shaffery successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of yet another defendant by showing that the plaintiffs lacked evidence that they were exposed to the client's product.

In Kathleen Ryan, et al. v. Lustre-Cal, et al. (Calif. Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., Appeal No. B248845), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer filed by Poole & Shaffery on behalf a defendant that manufactured products used in the automobile repair industry. In the demurrer, Poole & Shaffery successfully argued that the statute of limitations precluded the plaintiffs' claims because they had expired approximately seven months before they initiated their lawsuit. The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, Poole & Shaffery argued that despite amending the complaint several times, the plaintiffs continuously failed to allege facts to invoke the delayed discovery rule, which would have saved their claims. The Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the trial court's ruling on the ground that the trial court did not err in sustaining Poole & Shaffery's demurrer.

In addition, Poole & Shaffery obtained dismissals in exchange for mutual waivers of costs in several other cases including Vinh Van Vu, et al. v. ICM, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clarita County, Case No. BC498658); Frank Henry Tanner, et al. v. 3M Company, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco County, Case No. CGC-12-276008); Mikhaiel Mikhaiel, et al. v. Borg Warner Corporation, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clarita County, Case No. BC538002); andWalter McCall, et al. v. Ace Hardware, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clarita County, Case No. BC524733).

Cheers to a New Year and the many more successes to come.