Skip to Content

Innovative & Successful Trial Attorneys

At Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP we take pride in our reputation as innovative and successful trial attorneys with decades of litigation experience. We are trial attorneys who actually try cases. The two named partners have been elected as members of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and many of our other attorneys have first-chaired their own trials. We have earned a statewide reputation for 

effective defense strategies that produce favorable resolutions, including dispositive motion and favorable settlements. If a case has to be tried, we are fully prepared to take the case to a jury-even on short notice and are proud of our track record.

Defending Catastrophic Exposure Cases Throughout California

We take pride in being a boutique trial firm capable of defending catastrophic exposure cases in a variety of scenarios that include personal injuries, products liability, transportation and trucking, premises liability, wildfire litigation, public entity (dangerous condition and sexual abuse), major construction defect cases, and employment litigation. Our ability to hold down damages using innovative litigation resolution strategies, effective dispositive motions, and trial spans the last 40 years. We are also proud of our record of defense verdicts in difficult cases.

Cases of Interest

George Byers v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024 DJDAR 3844)

When a party seeks attorneys fees as damages caused by an insurer’s breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 819, it impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege as to attorney fees documents provided in support.

Click here to download brief

READ MORE 

Masimo Corporation v. The Vanderpool Law Firm (2024) 2024 DJDAR 3754

A law firm can run, but can’t hide, from sanctions for discovery misuse.

Click here to download brief

READ MORE 

United States of America v. Jose Pablo Jimenez-Chaidez 2024 DJDAR 2652

District court’s decision to admit federal agent’s cellphone testimony as lay rather than expert witness was proper given that the information provided did not require specialized knowledge.       

Click here to download brief

READ MORE