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
Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America Supreme Court of California March 20, 2025, Opinion Filed S280598
Cost shifting under section 998 is not limited to cases resolved by trial or arbitration.
Nothing in the statute's language limits its application to cases that end in trial nor exempts from its application cases that settle.
READ MOREWhether Parties in Federal Court have a Mandatory Duty to Update Discovery Responses.
Yes, under FRCP Rule 26(e) Duty to Supplement: Discovery, if a party acquires material additional information or learns that information was materially incorrect after serving discovery responses, the responding party has a duty to supplement or amend their response in a timely manner.
READ MOREJohnson v. Department of Transportation 2025 DJDAR 2274 (Mar. 17, 2025, No. C099319)
An employee's disclosure of an email to the claimant did not waive attorney-client privilege under Evid. Code, §§ 912, subd. (a), 953, because the employee lacked authority to waive it, and the agency did not fail to use reasonable means to preserve confidentiality.
READ MORE