San Diego Personal Injury Blog

By Eric Ganci

June 6, 2023 gave us this filed case Bebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC, cited as of 6/14/23 as 2023 WL 3837260.  

The main discussion of the case is whether the Court improperly granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants (which the Court of Appeal held granting this MSJ in favor of Defense was wrong).

By Eric Ganci

Sometimes in the legal system, we have courts that disagree on how to read, understand, and interpret the law. I know, I know: it’s shocking to think lawyers and Judges may somehow find a way to disagree with each other.  

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 500 thousand to one million people who lived and worked at Camp Lejeune Military base were exposed to toxic elements in the water supply between 1953 and 1987.

By Eric Ganci

In California civil litigation, if Plaintiff alleges a brain injury (TBI), many times Defense will hire a neuropsychologist as an expert to evaluate Plaintiff for the claimed injuries.

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act was enacted in 2022, enabling those who suffered from exposure to the toxic waters of Camp Lejeune, to file claims against responsible parties including the U.S.

On August 21, 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed to amend the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to include seat belt warnings for rear passenger seats.

The proposed rule will mandate seat belt warning signs for nearly all new vehicles manufactured in the United States, requiring car makers to include visual and audio alerts when rear seatbelts are not buckled.

By Eric Ganci

If you were “present” at an Incident caused to a direct Plaintiff, and suffer emotional distress but are not the direct Plaintiff, can you make a claim against the Defendant who caused the Incident against the direct Plaintiff?  

By Eric Ganci

In the California Civil Court system, California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 allows you to accelerate your litigation by setting a trial date sooner. The law considers these “preference trials” and states per CCP 36(a) “a superior court lacks discretion and ‘shall’ grant preference to a party over 70 years of age upon making a showing, ‘(1) [t]he party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole[, and] (2) [t]he health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.’”