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
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC (2026) No. A174202 Court of Appeal, First District, California
Counsel may be sanctioned under section 128.7 for filing a brief containing fabricated legal authorities, even where the inaccuracies come from generative AI or outsourced drafting to contracted attorneys.
READ MOREMichelle Harland v. City of West Hollywood (2026) No. B343375 Court of Appeal, Second District, California
Filing suit before satisfying the Government Claims Act’s claim-presentation requirements is considered a fatal defect, BARS RECOVERY COMPLETELY.
READ MORESargenti v. City of Long Beach (2026) DJDAR 3913 Court of Appeal, Second District, California
Inadmissible evidence could not create a triable issue of material fact at summary judgement stage, so plaintiff failed to show City had constructive knowledge of dangerous condition on its property.
READ MORE