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 three 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
Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 2DCA/1
Punitive damage award reversed because Plaintiff failed to establish that someone responsible for Defendant’s corporate policy had the requisite state of mind to support such an award
READ MOREDonohue v. AMN Services, LLC (No. S253677)
The California Supreme Court struck down an employer’s policy of rounding meal period punches. The Court further held noncompliant meal periods results in a rebuttable presumption of liability against the employer at the summary judgment stage.
READ MOREPulliam v. HNL Automotive (2021) 2DCA/5 No. B293435
Attorney’s fee award upheld without apportionment based on causes of action because defendants failed to show Plaintiff’s unsuccessful causes of action warranted apportionment.
READ MORE