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
Rycz v. Superior Court (McGarry) (2022) 81 Cal. App. 5th 824
The availability of remote trial testimony is not a proper basis for denying a motion to transfer a case to the county where most witnesses are located.
READ MOREWang v. Nesse, 2022 DJDAR 7680
In a statute-of-limitations dispute, there was a triable issue of fact as to when an attorney’s representation ended when he sent equivocal emails regarding his intent to withdraw and signed subsequent documents that identified him as the client’s representation.
READ MOREJoshi v. Fitness Internat., LLC (June 14, 2022, No. H048115) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 584]
An employee’s notation on a walk-through checklist indicating that a sauna “needed repair” is insufficient to show either gross negligence or actual or constructive knowledge of an unsafe condition, by a fitness center.
READ MORE