| MCLE Classes | Date: Friday,January 27,2012 Time: 12:15 pm – 1:15 pm (check-in 11:30 am) Presenters: Hon. Rene Chouteau,Hon. Dana Simonds,Hon. Raima Ballinger &Hon. Nancy Shaffer  Honorable Rene Chouteau  Hon. Mark Tansil  Hon. Dana Simonds  Hon. Raima Ballinger  Hon. Nancy Shaffer Place: Fountaingrove Inn,101 Fountaingrove Pkwy.,Santa Rosa,CA 95404 Cost: $65 SCBA Member;$90 NonMember Click Here to Register Click Here to Print Registration Flyer | |
The Judicial Officers will share with members of the Bar their thoughts and expectations for the administration of justice in Sonoma County for the coming year. Barristers The Barristers Club of the Sonoma County Bar Association Cordially invites all SCBA Members to attend The New Admittees’ ReceptionPlease Join us in Recognizing and Introducing the Newest Sonoma County Attorneys! Date:Thursday,February 23,2012 Time:5:30 pm —7:30 pm Location:Sonoma County Bar Association | 37 Old Courthouse Square,Suite 100 | Santa Rosa,CA 95404 Beer &Wine will be Served! MCLE Classes | Date: Wendesday,April 4,2012 Time: 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm (check-in 3:45 pm) Presenters: Patrick Emery,Steve Mitchell,&Hon. Fern Smith (Ret.)  Patrick Emery  Steve Mitchell  Hon. Fern Smith (Ret.) Place: Sonoma County Bar Association,37 Old Courthouse Sq.,Ste. 100,Santa Rosa,CA Cost: $50 –SCBA Members;$60-Non Members MCLE Credit: 2.0 Unit General MCLE Credit Click Here to Register Click Here to Print Registration Flyer | |
Get Insights from a Plaintiff,Defense and Jurist Perspective on Practicing in Federal Court,including the Pro’s and Con’s Compared to State Court. We will Cover Procedural and Substantive Issues from Jurisdiction,Pleadings,Case Management Conferences,Discovery,Experts,and Trial. »Continue reading Civil Do’s and Don’ts in Federal Court Breach of Contract | Synopsis: Plaintiff claimed it was entitled to $3 million as a result of the County’s alleged failure to grant an easement pursuant to a 1987 Dedication Agreement. After a 17-day trial,the jury rendered a defense verdict. Case Type: Breach of Contract Case Name: Paul Scheinberg,Successor Trustee of the Salmon Family Trust v. County of Sonoma Case Number: SCV 242816 Date:11/15/2011 Trial Type: Jury Trial Length: 17 days Verdict for: Defense Attorney for Plaintiff: Daniel Post and Allison Fries – Anderson,Zeigler,Disharoon,Gallagher &Gray Attorney for Defense:Steve Mitchell,Leo Bartolotta and Robert Henkels – Geary,Shea,O’Donnell,Grattan &Mitchell Experts for Plaintiff: Richard “Dusty” Rhodes –Appraiser Experts for Defendant: George Dutton – Appraiser Judge: Honorable Rene Chouteau |
Facts: Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and intentional interference with contract,claiming that in 2007 the County of Sonoma failed to grant an easement over the West County Trail,which would have provided access from its twenty acre property in Sebastopol to State Highway 116. The West County Trail is owned and maintained by the County of Sonoma. Damages/Injuries: Plaintiff claimed $250,000 in breach of contract damages,and $2,750,000 in damages for intentional interference with contractual relations,representing the difference between the fair market value of the property and the contract price of $5,000,000. Contentions:Plaintiff alleged the County of Sonoma was required to convey the easement under the terms of a Dedication Agreement executed in 1987,whereby the former property owner dedicated a railroad right-of-way to the County for the bike trail. Plaintiff further claimed that because of the failure to convey the easement,Santa Rosa Junior College terminated a contract to buy the property from the Trust for $5,000,000. The County claimed that in response to demands to convey the easement,that it offered an easement that contained reasonable conditions,which were required to protect bikers and pedestrians using the West County Trail. Plaintiff claimed that the County was not entitled to insert restrictions into the easement which were not contained in the earlier Dedication Agreement,and that the County’s failure to grant the easement was motivated by concern regarding increased use of the easement for access to a college campus. Result: Jury found there was no breach of contract and that the County of Sonoma did not intentionally interfere with the Trust’s contract with Santa Rosa Junior College. Court quieted title and gave plaintiff the easement called for in the original agreement. MCLE Classes When should you focus on your professional online presence?What should your law firm website and web presence look like so you are sending the correct message?Date: Tuesday,February 7,2012 Time: 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm (check-in 11:45 am) Presenter: Jabez LeBret Place: Sonoma County Bar Association,37 Old Courthouse Sq.,Ste. 100,Santa Rosa,CA Cost: $40 –SCBA Members;$50-Non Members MCLE Credit: 1.5 Units General MCLE Credit Click Here to Register Click Here to Print Registration Flyer | |
 Jabez LeBret Discover how to grow your online professional reputation the right way and learn how to comply with the stringent rules governing attorney’s online presence. This educational and entertaining course will help you transform your online presence so you are effectively connecting with peers,attracting new clients,and avoiding pit falls that can cost you time,money,and your practice. • Learn what to include in a firm website,and how to properly represent your firm on local search directories. • Discover what makes an effective law firm website strategy from blogging to social media. • Review the rules that Google has in place avoiding costly mistakes and learn some general guidelines regarding your online presence. »Continue reading Manage Your Online Presence to Grow Your Practice Events ST. PATRICK’S DAY MIXERhonoring our PAST PRESIDENTS  
Join Us for an evening of laughs,munchies and good company! Don’t forget your Green!! Wednesday March 14,2012 5:30 – 7:30 pm Sonoma County Bar Association 37 Old Courthouse Square,Suite 100 FREE ADMISSION – NO RSVP Sponsored By: Geary,Shea,O’Donnell,Grattan &Mitchell P.C. Perry,Johnson,Anderson,Miller &Moskowitz Click Here for Additional Information! Events An Evening of Skating Fun for Your Family &Friends!!Friday,March 9,2012 | 5:30 pm—8:00 pm Snoopy’s Home Ice 1667 W. Steele Lane | Santa Rosa,CA 95403 $25 Adults ~ $20 Ages 6-18 ~ Kids 5 &Under are Free ~ $80 Groups of 5 ~Price Includes:Ice Skating,Skate Rental &Buffet Dinner~ Part of the Proceeds of the Event Will Benefit CHOPS Teen Club 
Come and enjoy a night on the ice and support the community! Click Here to Print Registration Flyer MCLE Classes What do we do with them,how do we do it,why do we care?Date: Thursday,March 29,2012 Time: 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm (check-in 3:45 pm) Presenters: John Johnson,Cindy Craig and Darlene Elmore  John Johnson  Cindy Craig  Darlene Elmore Place: Sonoma County Bar Association,37 Old Courthouse Sq.,Ste. 100,Santa Rosa,CA Cost: $60 –SCBA Members;$70-Non Members MCLE Credit: 3.0 Unit General MCLE Credit Click Here to Register Click Here to Print Registration Flyer | |
• Converting documents into digital formats (the “paperless” office) • Processing,organizing,accessing and using digital material in the law office and litigation • Transmitting and Tracking Files to: The Expert Opposing Counsel Spreadsheets,Emails and PDF’s • Use of existing technologies:tips and tricks: Adobe Excel Outlook • Creating,Organizing and Using The Electronic File and Use of Exhibits at: Mediation Deposition Trial »Continue reading Organizing and Managing Documents in the Law Office MCLE Classes Coping with the Challenges Often Associated with Legal PracticeDate: Tuesday,January 31,2012 Time: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm (check-in 11:45 am) Presenter: Richard Carlton. Place: Sonoma County Bar Association,37 Old Courthouse Sq.,Ste. 100,Santa Rosa,CA Cost: $40 –SCBA Members;$50-Non Members MCLE Credit: 1.0 Unit Substance Abuse MCLE Credit Click Here to Register Click Here to Print Registration Flyer | |
An examination of the stress,depression and substance abuse and related problems often experienced by legal professionals.
»Continue reading Stress,Depression and Substance Abuse Personal Injury | Synopsis: A Sonoma County jury awarded plaintiff more than $1.2 million against the State of California for the injuries she suffered in a collision with a CHP officer. The State denied liability,contending that the officer was properly responding to an emergency and that a motorcycle driver was the primary cause of the accident. The jury found the officer to be negligent and apportioned 99.5% of the liability to the State Case Type: Personal Injury Case Name: Dempsey v. Justin Oliver,State of California Case Number: SCV 247776 Date:10/27/2011 Trial Type: Jury Trial Length: 7 days Verdict for: Plaintiff Damages: Economic Damages:$34,952.00 | Non-Economic Damages:$1,200,000.00 Liability: State of California:99.5% | Justin Oliver:00.5% Attorney for Plaintiff: Brendan Kunkle of Abbey,Weitzenberg,Warren &Emery Attorney for Defense:John Walovich of Lewis,Brisbois,Bisgaard &Smith Attorney for Defendant State of California: Jeffrey Vincent,Deputy Attorney General Judge: Honorable Mark Tansil |
Facts: On September 26,2009,plaintiff Cynthia Dempsey’s pickup truck was struck by a CHP patrol vehicle on Highway 12 westbound,just east of Santa Rosa Avenue in Santa Rosa,causing the pickup to flip onto a guardrail,bounce off and skid along Highway 12 on its roof for approximately 100 feet. The officer had received a call that a group of approximately 25-30 people,some dressed in baggy clothing,had gathered at the Santa Rosa DMV parking lot. He entered his vehicle and began a Acode three emergency response. Between Farmers Lane and the Maple Avenue on-ramp,the officer reached speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour. Defendant Justin Oliver was riding his motorcycle on the Maple Avenue on-ramp to Highway 12,entering the freeway at about 40-45 miles per hour. He testified that he was a safe distance in front of the vehicle to his left before making the lane change,and saw no patrol vehicle. The CHP officer was unable to slow enough to avoid the motorcycle. After swerving to the left and attempting to steer back to the right,the officer lost control of his vehicle and skidded across the freeway before slamming into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. Damages/Injuries: Plaintiff claimed economic damages in the amount of $34,952.00,which was the amount stipulated by the parties to be the amount incurred by Plaintiff for treatment of her injuries. Plaintiff also claimed non-economic damages primarily resulting from the external scarring to her face and scalp,and the loss of 30% of her outer ear in the accident,in addition to the pain,suffering and emotional scarring that were caused by the collision. Contentions:Plaintiff contended that Defendant State of California was 100% responsible for the collision. Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that he did not believe that the motorcyclist could have seen the patrol car approaching at high speed,and therefore could not conclude that the motorcyclist was a contributing factor in the accident. Plaintiff’s expert also determined that the speed of the officer was the primary cause of the officer’s loss of control of his vehicle,and ultimately the cause of the collision. Defendant State of California denied liability,and presented the testimony of an accident reconstructionist,in addition to the testimony of the involved officer,a gang expert and a MAIT investigator. The State contended that the officer was properly responding to an emergency call,and that the motorcyclist cut off the approaching officer,made an unsafe lane change,and failed to yield to a patrol car which had its lights and siren activated. According to the State,the state’s witnesses testified that the motorcyclist would have had a clear unobstructed view of the patrol vehicle before changing lanes into its path. Result: Judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $1,234,952.00. Judgment for non-economic damages in the amount of $1,194,000.00 against defendant State of California,and in the amount of $6,000.00 against defendant Justin Oliver. Judgment for economic damages in the amount of $34,952 against both defendants jointly and severally. Settlement Negotiations: A mediation was held with Brian Purtill of the Arbitration and Mediation Center on December 15,2010. A mandatory settlement conference was held on August 8,2011. The State also served an offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 in the amount of $100,000. Plaintiff served the State with a 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $349,999. Experts for Plaintiff: N/A Experts for Defense: N/A Landlord-Tenant | Synopsis:Building owner sued auto body repair shop (tenant) for breach of lease after tenant vacated the premises,claiming owner did not perform promised remodeling. Court awarded $184,875 to owner on its complaint for breach of lease,and $134,803 to tenant on its cross-complaint. Case Type: Landlord-Tenant Case Name: B&G Group v. Bishop Case Number: SCV-245610 Date:04/26/2011 Trial Type: Court Trial Length: N/A Verdict for: Plaintiff on the complaint,and defendant/counterclaimant on its counterclaim Attorney for Plaintiff: Timothy C. Wilson –Aaron &Wilson LLP,San Francisco,CA;William W. Hatcher Jr. –Hatcher &Rundel,Santa Rosa,CA Attorney for Defense:Martin Zurada,San Francisco,CA Judge: Honorable Rene Chouteau |
Facts: Defendant leased a commercial space from plaintiff for the purpose of operating an auto body shop. Defendant vacated the premises prior to the expiration of the lease. Plaintiff sued for breach of the lease. Defendant counter-claimed,alleging that plaintiff was in breach of the lease by failing to 1) perform promised remodeling of the premises,2) cure various building code violations,and 3) fix structural problems. Damages/Injuries: Complaint:Plaintiff claimed over $300,000 in damages. Defendant/Cross-Complainant claimed $134,803. Contentions:Defendant claimed that plaintiff promised to significantly remodel the premises,but never performed the remodel. Defendant claimed that the failure to remodel,together with disruptive construction practices by plaintiff on the neighboring parcel,caused defendant recurrent business losses. Plaintiff asserted that it did not perform the remodel because defendant elected to wait until an expansion,provided for in the lease,was built to the premises. Defendant contended that the decision to wait on the expansion did not affect plaintiff’s obligation to perform the remodel,and that plaintiff acknowledged this when it submitted plans to the City just to remodel the premises without any mention of the expansion. Defendant also contended that plaintiff failed to fulfill its promises to cure several building code violations,and to fix structural problems,including a leaky roof and malfunctioning HVAC system. Plaintiff claimed that,under the terms of the lease,defendant was the one obligated to cure any building code violations. Result: The court awarded plaintiff $184,875 on its complaint,and awarded defendant/counterclaimant $134,803 on its counterclaim. Judgment was entered for plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $50,072. Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff made a settlement offer for $100,000. Defendant made a walk-away offer. Experts for Plaintiff: not provided Experts for Defense:Barry Ben Zion – Economist,Santa Rosa,CA | |