DeSimone’s trial victory in Lopez v. CIA Wheel, Case No: BC545112, (Dept. 47 LASC) exemplifies his dedication to justice. An auto parts company violated fair employment laws by firing a woman, Maria Lopez, for having cancer, despite being one of the company’s top salespeople. Although Lopez died and her children could not recover non-economic damages, DeSimone took over the case from another CELA member who was not in a position to try the case. DeSimone represented Lopez’s three children, securing $500,000 in punitive damages, more than 30 times the economic damages she suffered – a multiplier not seen in the California Court of Appeal in more than 40 years. Judge Hammock denied Defendant’s Motion for New Trial and DeSimone successfully argued and prevailed on appeal resulting in the precedent setting published decision of Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group, 63 Cal. App. 5th 82 (2021).
The appellate victory in Caldera v. CDCR, 48 Cal. App. 5th 601 (2020), for the plaintiff holding that plaintiff’s lawyers should be paid Los Angeles rates in San Bernardino, and directing the trial court to consider a multiplier in a FEHA discrimination case on behalf of a correctional officer with a disability, the Court of Appeal relied on the declaration prepared and executed by DeSimone. The court referenced DeSimone’s support for the multiplier, where he declared, “Given the challenges faced on this case, few attorneys would have risked advancing litigation, expert, and trial costs, to say nothing of ‘loaning’ the plaintiff thousands of attorney hours.” His further statement that the “published opinion … will benefit thousands of victims of employment discrimination,” was crucial in this victory.
Charlebois v. Angels Baseball
Charlebois v. Angels Baseball, Case No. SACV 10-0853 DOC(ANx), where the court stated about SDSHH “Moreover, Class Counsel’s firm reputation is prestigious and thus on par with its comparator firms. Class Counsel’s firm is a major player in litigating cutting edge international human rights cases, as exemplified by law partner Paul Hoffman’s February 2012 argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Case No.1 0-1491. One of the members of Class Counsel, DeSimone, has been named by the Daily Journal among the Top 50 Employment Lawyers in the State of California, inclusive of lawyers from top international law firms, for three years in a row.”
Xue Lu et al. v. United States of America
Xue Lu et al. v. United States of America, 621 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2010) reversing dismissal of the case against the United States of America while holding an asylum officer was acting in the course and scope of employment when he demanded sexual favors and money in return for approving asylum applications.
Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsey
Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsey et al. 173 CA4th 740 (2009), a precedent setting case in which the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment and directed the trial court to admit evidence of other employees who contended they were subjected to discriminatory conduct similar to that alleged by the Plaintiff.
Brandi R. Griffith v. Paul Hamilton Davis
In Griffith v. Davis, 161 F.R.D. 687 (1995), DeSimone compels the United States of America to produce documents which pertained to the IRS investigation of the shooting death of a young man killed by an IRS special agent, which included the recorded statement of the IRS special agent.
Wayne Mogilefsky v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Silver Pictures, et al., Real Parties in Interest
Mogilefsky v. Silver Pictures, 20 Cal App. 4th 409 (1993) precedent setting published California decision to recognizing that same sex harassment violates the California Fair Employment & Housing Act and motive is irrelevant to sex harassment.
© Copyright 2022 vjamesdesimonelaw.com All Rights Reserved.
The information provided on this website is not legal advice and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by use of the site or by submitting a contact form.
None of the content on this website constitutes a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.