Our Appellate DecisionsCases handled by Estey and Bomberger have resulted in numerous published opinions that expand the rights of personal injury victims throughout the State of California.Morris v. DeLaTorre (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 260. This landmark case changed the law in the State of California. In a nutshell, business owners are now required to call 911 and/or take other reasonable measures to protect their patrons if their patrons are assaulted on the business premises. In Morris, the plaintiff was attacked by gang members while waiting for his food at a Mexican restaurant. The employees of the restaurant sat and watched as the gang members grabbed a knife from their kitchen and brutally stabbed the plaintiff. At no time did the employees of the restaurant attempt to assist plaintiff. In fact, they did not even call 911. At the trial level, the judge ruled that the restaurant had no duty to even call 911.This was obviously the wrong result so Stephen Estey appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court and was eventually victorious (as noted).
Cervantes v. United States of America (9th Cir. 2003) 330 F.3d 1186. This is another groundbreaking case that changed the law in favor of consumers across the country. In this case, Mr. Cervantes purchased a used vehicle from a government auction. Unfortunately for Mr .Cervantes, there was 119 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle’s bumper that the government had missed in its pre-sale inspection. Approximately three months later, Mr. Cervantes was returning from Mexico when a drug sniffing dog alerted on the 119 pounds of marijuana in his bumper. He was arrested and charged with drug smuggling. After the criminal case was dismissed, Mr. Estey sued the federal government on Mr. Cervantes’ behalf. At trial, the court ruled that the government was immune from liability in the matter. Mr. Estey appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in a case of first impression, the court ruled that the government was not immune from liability. The court also berated the government for its handling of the matter. People v. $500,275.00 (2002 WL 313625)(not published). This matter involved a government seizure of $500,275.00 of Armando Arreola’s money. Mr. Arreola had deposited this amount of money in a bank account here in Southern California and was preparing to purchase a larger Caterpillar tractor to export to Mexico. The Sheriff was notified by the bank of the large cash deposits made by Mr. Arreola and he was arrested for drug related charges. Unfortunately, Mr. Arreola was not a drug dealer. When the government realized they did not have a criminal case against Mr .Arreola, they took his passport and deported him. They then kept his money. Mr. Estey made a claim on behalf of Mr. Arreola for return of the $500,275.00. The trial court ruled that the government could keep the money because it was the proceeds of drug trafficking. Mr. Estey appealed this decision and the court of appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Arreola and ordered all of the money returned to him. Wellman v. Public Storage, Inc. (2006 WL 205288)(not published). In this matter, Mr. Wellman had rented a storage unit from Public Storage. As part of the rental agreement, Public Storage attempted to absolve themselves for any injuries that occurred to Mr. Wellman while on their property. Mr. Wellman signed the agreement even though he was not sure what the agreement meant. He went to his assigned storage unit and opened the heavy, roll-up door. Unfortunately, the door “stop” was broken and the door did not stay rolled up. In fact, it crashed down on his head and severely injured him. The trial court ruled that the exculpatory clause in the contract relieved Public Storage from any responsibility. Mr. Estey appealed this decision and the court of appeal unanimously overruled the trial court saying that it was against public policy for a business to try to shirk its responsibility to maintain safe premises. Russo v. TRW Title Insurance (1999)(not published). In this action, the plaintiffs had purchased title insurance for a piece or property they purchased from Cal-Trans. Unfortunately, the title company missed an easement on the property. The Russos were prevented from building a rental house for approximately one year and sued the title insurance company. Prior to trial the title insurance company offered the Russos one dollar to resolve the case. At trial, Mr. Estey convinced the jurors that TRW was in the wrong and the Russos were awarded in excess of $85,000.00. However, the trial judge took the verdict away. Mr. Estey appealed on behalf of the Russos and the court of appeal reinstated the verdict (along with interest for a total of approximately $120,000.00)
Estey and Bomberger, LLP |
 |
Home | attorneys | about us | practice areas | case results | contact us | resources | case evaluation | sitemap |
