Call For A Consultation 855-997-7522
Light Bulbs
  • Fasuyi v. Permatex
    Unanimous defense verdict following jury trial in action where plaintiff allegedly developed life-altering skin depigmentation as a result of dermal absorption of benzene and xylene from a brake cleaner. (Fasuyi v. Permatex (Alameda County, Case No. RG 06-281952)
  • Fasuyi v. Permatex (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 351]
    Affirmatively established the existence of an ethical obligation for plaintiffs’ counsel to warn defense counsel prior to taking a default.
  • Case Dismissed
    Plaintiff alleged that he sustained acute myelogenous leukemia as a result of occupational exposure to benzene while working on various ships, oil rigs and oil-clean-up sites. P&S represented the manufacturer of an oil or fuel additive. Trial court dismissed action for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
  • Case Dismissed
    Plaintiff alleged that he developed asbestosis as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products during his employment as a laborer and insulator between 1969 and the 1980's. Plaintiff dismissed P&S client, a manufacturer of fibrous adhesive, for a mutual waiver of costs after P&S filed a Motion for Undertaking of Costs.
     
  • Case Dismissed
    Plaintiff alleged that he contracted asbestos and pleural thickening/plaques due to occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products during his employment as an insulator from 1965 through the 1980s. Plaintiff dismissed P&S Client, a manufacturer of fibrous adhesive, for a mutual waiver of costs.
  • Case Dismissed
    Plaintiff alleged that he sustained non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result of occupation exposure to chemicals while working at various auto body shops between 1977 and 2007. Plaintiff dismissed two P&S clients: a manufacturer of paint and coating; and a manufacturer of paint surface preparation cleaner for a waiver of costs.
     
  • Successful Representation
    (Alamada Super Ct. No. RG15796166): On December 11, 2017, a jury reached a $22,170,000 verdict on behalf of Plaintiff Cheryl Booker, and against defendants Vanderbilt Minerals LLC and Imerys Talc America. Plaintiff alleged that decedent Richard Booker, a decades-long employee in the paint-manufacturing industry, was occupationally exposed to asbestos contaminated talc products that were marketed specifically to his paint, cosmetic and ceramics industry. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants failed to disclose that their products contained asbestos, and that they affirmatively assured their clients to the contrary. Plaintiff was represented by Joseph Satterly of Kazan Mclain, Satterly & Greenwood. Defendant Vanderbilt was represented by Dehay & Elliston LLP. Defendant Imerys was represented by Alston & Bird LLP.
  • Obtained Favorable Ruling
    Successfully defended administrative claims brought by workers claiming misclassification, unpaid commissions and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and violation of California minimum wage requirements. Claimants were awarded nothing on their claims.
  • Successful Defense Verdict
    Plaintiff alleged that he sustained lung disease (interstitial pulmonary fibrosis) as a result of occupational exposure to respiratory particulates while working in an automotive repair body shop. A jury returned a defense verdict on behalf of P&S client, a manufacturer of automotive sprays and adhesives.
  • Case Dismissed
    Plaintiffs alleged that their decedent sustained interstitial pulmonary fibrosis as a result of exposure to various respiratory particulates, including silica, sand, metal, and chemical products, while employed at a light pole production facility between 1973 and 2008. Plaintiffs dismissed P&S Client, a supplier of cement dyes, for a waiver of costs.
  • Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846]

    Established the pleading standard for toxic tort cases.

  • Case Dismissed
    Plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos from products associated with P&S client. Plaintiffs dismissed P&S client for a mutual waiver of cost after P&S filed a Rule 11 Motion and Summary Judgment Motion on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations.