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
Cohen v. Superior Court (Shwartz) 2024 DJDAR 4955
Only the government, not private individuals, can bring claims under Gov Code 36900 for civil redress of municipal code violations, unless the private individual can prove that they fall into one of the distinct categories where there is an exception.
READ MORECBRE v. Superior Court 2024 DJDAR 4892
A written contract is not required to invoke the Privette doctrine, and the undisputed facts established that petitioners delegated control over the project to the general contractor prior to the injury.
READ MOREAndrews v. Metropolitan Transit System 74 Cal.App.5th 597 (2022)
A notice of rejection of a claim sent by a public entity is insufficient if it does not include a warning that is substantially the same as the warning in Gov. Code § 913 even if there are specific facts that may lead the drafter of the notice to believe that part of the warning is not necessary.
READ MORE