Avrek Law Firm Recovers $5 Million Auto Accident Case

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 24, 2023 -- Best Lawyers 2024 "Lawyer of the Year" for Personal Injury Litigation R. Rex Parris, founding partner of Parris Law Firm, won a significant victory when a Los Angeles jury awarded $20 Million to the family of a woman killed by a drunk driver in Lancaster, CA.

According to the complaint, former Enterprise Elementary School principal, Mary Kruppe was heavily intoxicated when she drove her lifted Jeep Wrangler along a dimly lit road and crashed head-on into the Plaintiff's vehicle. The collision was so severe the Plaintiffs' daughter did not survive the impact. After the crash, Ms. Kruppe was transported to the hospital, where tests revealed that she had a blood alcohol concentration level of nearly three times the legal limit.

There was no question about who was responsible for the collision. However, the jury also found that GEICO had refused to settle the case for the policy limits before trial. "It's frustrating that insurance companies like GEICO  drag these clear liability cases out for years to avoid paying what's rightfully owed to our clients. These aggressive tactics by insurance companies do nothing more than prolong the suffering of a grieving family," said lead trial attorney R. Rex Parris of Parris Law Firm.

"Ms. Kruppe clearly knew her actions would put everyone on the road in danger, yet she still decided to get behind the wheel after a night of heavy drinking," said Parris Law Firm trial attorney Alexander R. Wheeler. "Our client's daughter had such a bright future ahead of her, but it was shattered because of Ms. Kruppe's reckless behavior," Wheeler added.

Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected lawyer ranking service in the world. For 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional, and national publications and globally.

Since starting his practice in 1985, R. Rex Parris has gotten exceptional results for his clients. Parris made the first million-dollar verdict in Kern County. He also secured a record-breaking defamation and emotional distress jury verdict against Guess Inc.'s founder, Georges Marciano, for $370,000,000. This verdict went on to become the largest verdict in the U.S. in 2009. In recent years, R. Rex Parris has regularly achieved large settlements. Some cases of note are:

$1.8 Billion settlement against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy

$120 Million car crash verdict

$56.5 Million car crash verdict

$49.6 Million car crash verdict

$41.6 Million car crash verdict

$6.9  Million disputed liability verdict against Allstate Insurance

What distinguishes R. Rex Parris from other trial lawyers is how he approaches every individual case. By applying the teachings from renowned cognitive science experts, he is able to tell his clients' daily struggles in an understandable and interesting way. "It's important for juries to understand that my clients are real people who are suffering physically and emotionally through no fault of their own," said Parris. "When I represent these families, I can't help but get attached to them. It's what motivates me to do everything I can to give them a fighting chance following a severe injury."

In response to winning for Best Lawyers 2024, Parris said, “It’s a great honor to be recognized by Best Lawyers in America for a second time as Lawyer of the Year. "The work I do is solely on behalf of my clients and in anticipation of helping them receive the justice they rightfully deserve."

Congratulations to R. Rex Parris for being recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2024 "Lawyer of the Year" for Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Litigation and his recent wins. 

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 19, 2023 -- The precedent-setting Title IX sex discrimination case against San Diego State University for discriminating against its female-student athletes continues to move forward. On April 12, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Todd W. Robinson confirmed female student-athletes deprived of equal athletic financial aid can sue their schools for damages—and held ten of the women suing SDSU could do so. Late Friday afternoon, September 15, 2023, ruling on SDSU's motion to dismiss in part Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, Judge Robinson held that all seventeen of the women suing SDSU can seek such damages.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits all educational institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating based on sex. It requires schools to provide male and female student-athletes with equal athletic financial aid and equal treatment and benefits. And it prohibits all schools from retaliating against anyone for speaking out about or challenging sex discrimination at the school.

The original SDSU Title IX lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2022, accusing the school with depriving women of over half a million dollars annually in equal athletic financial aid. An amended complaint filed in April of 2022 sought damages from SDSU for retaliating against its women athletes requesting $1.2 million for the equal athletic financial aid the women athletes were deprived of in the last two years, the additional money they are illegally being denied this year, and a court order requiring SDSU to provide equal athletic financial aid in the future.

On February 16, 2022, a Zoom meeting of the women's varsity track and field team was called on short notice to discuss the team's upcoming meet. At the start of that meeting, SDSU made clear to the five women and over 40 of their teammates that it was ‘disappointed’ with the team members who had filed the Title IX suit. That was blatantly illegal retaliation. It adversely affected the five women athletes and their ability to pursue their claims. It also had a negative effect on the other women athletes, making them cagy about pursuing their claims and helping the women who had filed suit prove their claims on behalf of all women athletes. When the women who had sued asked SDSU to take specific steps to minimize the harm caused by this illegal retaliation, SDSU refused.

The court also rejected SDSU's argument that, because the case had already taken so long that the women are no longer student-athletes, they could not seek a court order stopping the school from discriminating in the future. It held that, if the case went forward as a class action, those who were student-athletes when the case was filed could also seek a court order protecting future student-athletes.

 "This is a huge victory for the women athletes and everyone who cares about stopping sex discrimination at SDSU and nationwide," said Arthur H. Bryant of Bailey Glasser, LLP, in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. "The school has cheated its female student-athletes out of millions of dollars of equal athletic financial aid in the past few years alone—and it still hasn't changed its ways. Now, all the women who decided to stand up and fight can make SDSU pay. And the school won't be able to keep discriminating in the future just because it's delayed judgment day so far." 

HOUSTON, Aug. 3, 2023 -- Partners Kasi Chadwick and Colin Watterson of premier business litigation firm Hicks Thomas LLP have been selected for inclusion in the Benchmark Litigation 40 & Under listing, a guide to the most notable up-and-coming litigation attorneys in the U.S.

Benchmark Litigation is the only attorney-ranking publication to focus solely on litigation. Released annually, the 40 & Under guide highlights what it calls "the best and brightest law firm partners" in the country. Honorees are selected though a thorough analysis of their casework, coupled with peer and client surveys.

"Kasi and Colin are true assets to our firm and our clients," said Hicks Thomas partner John B. Thomas. "They are incredibly skilled and hardworking litigators, and our firm is very proud to see them recognized in this way."

Ms. Chadwick, who became a firm partner in January 2023, is an experienced trial lawyer whose casework includes commercial litigation, employment, personal injury, and professional responsibility matters. She has also served as in-house counsel for the Landry's organization. She is the former chair of Litigation of the Houston Bar Association and has been named to Texas Lawyer magazine's list of Rising Stars, Best Lawyers' list of Ones to Watch and Texas Super Lawyers' list of Texas Rising Stars.

Mr. Watterson, who also became a partner in January 2023, is an expert trial lawyer with a broad range of commercial litigation experience. He focuses on energy, real estate and technology. In addition to his Benchmark Litigation honor, he has also been named to The Best Lawyers in America list of Ones to Watch. He received his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law and, prior to entering private practice, clerked for Judge John Rogers of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. PM Solutions congratulates Kasi Chadwick and Colin Watterson on all their professional achievements and distinguishments. 

Benchmark Litigation

Hicks Thomas

LOS ANGELES, June 27, 2023 – Political and government law firm Kaufman Legal Group founder Stephen Kaufman has been recognized as a 'Legal Visionary' in Los Angeles Times' third annual Business of Law Magazine.  A recognized authority in the fields of campaign finance and election law, Mr. Kaufman represents elected officials, candidates, PACs, labor unions, non-profits, major donors, lobbying firms, and government agencies on a wide variety of campaign finance, election, and governmental ethics matters. 

Kaufman received this designation from writers at Business Law Magazine because of his contributions as an author and speaker on campaign reform and election issues with the magazine stating, "Southern California continues to maintain its status as a center for thought leaders and power brokers in the legal space. With so many superb law firms in the region, to be named as a standout attorney in what is surely one of the most impressive regional fields in the industry is quite an achievement."  Kaufman has been selected for distinction previously by California Law Business magazine in 2001 as one of California's top 20 attorneys under age 40.

May 18, 2023 -- The Supreme court’s rulings on several key issues have been closely watched by content creators, some of whom feared that it would widen the scope of copyrighted material that could be used for further derivative works. Here’s what their findings were.

The Andy Warhol Foundation and Lynn Goldsmith

The Supreme Court sided with a photographer in a dispute with the Andy Warhol Foundation over the late artist’s use of her photos as the basis for his own series of portraits of Prince. The court’s ruling was closely watched by content creators, some of whom feared that it would widen the scope of copyrighted material that could be used for further derivative works.

The justices issued a narrow ruling focused on one of four factors used by courts to determine the “fair use” of a copyrighted work. That is the “purpose and character” of the use. On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court sided with a photographer in a dispute with the Andy Warhol Foundation over the late artist’s use of her photos as the basis for his own series of portraits of Prince. The justices issued a narrow interpretation focused on one of several factors used by courts to determine the “fair use” of a copyrighted work and the “purpose and character” of the use. The factors include “the nature of a copyrighted work,” “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,” and “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

The Motion Picture Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that was not in favor of either party, but its lawyers expressed concerns that the case could create a broader definition of what constitutes a “fair use.” Mitch Glazier, the CEO of the Recording Industry Association Of America, suggested that the court’s ruling would have an impact on questions over artificial intelligence stating, “We hope those who have relied on distorted – and now discredited – claims of ‘transformative use,’ such as those who use copyrighted works to train artificial intelligence systems without authorization, will revisit their practices in light of this important ruling.”

Twitter, YouTube and The Family of Nohemi Gonzalez of California and The Family of Nawras Alassaf of Jordan

The Supreme Court rejected an effort to hold Twitter and other platforms responsible for “aiding and abetting” terrorism because the extremist groups posted fund-raising and recruiting content on their platforms. The judges, though, avoided a ruling on Section 230, the provision of a 1996 law that generally protects social media from liability over their moderation of third-party content. 

The family of Nawras Alassaf, a victim of a terrorist attack on an Istanbul nightclub sued Twitter and other platforms under a 2016 antiterrorism statute. The law permits those injured by a terrorist act to sue anyone “who aids and abets, by intentionally providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the tech platforms aided ISIS.

“As alleged by plaintiffs, defendants designed virtual platforms and knowingly failed to do ‘enough’ to remove ISIS-affiliated users and ISIS related content—out of hundreds of millions of users worldwide and an immense ocean of content—from their platforms,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, plaintiffs have failed to allege that defendants intentionally provided any substantial aid to the Reina attack or otherwise consciously participated in the Reina attack—much less that defendants so pervasively and systemically assisted ISIS as to render them liable for every ISIS attack.”

The justices declined to rule on the applicability of Section 230 in a separate case, brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez who was of a victim of a 2015 ISIS attack in France against (YouTube) Google. Given the ruling in the Twitter case, they sent the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

February 20, 2023 -- In a major case to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the nine justices will adjudicate the scope of Section 230, a part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that frees platforms from legal responsibility for content posted online by their users. A ruling that could expose internet companies to litigation from every direction.

The justices will hear arguments in an appeal by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old woman from California shot dead during a 2015 rampage by Islamist militants in Paris, of a lower court's ruling dismissing a lawsuit against YouTube's owner Google LLC seeking monetary damages, citing Section 230. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet.

The family claimed that YouTube, through its computer algorithms, unlawfully recommended videos by the Islamic State militant group, which claimed responsibility for the attacks, to certain users. A ruling against the company could create a "litigation minefield," Google told the justices in a brief. Such a decision could alter how the internet works, making it less useful, undermining free speech and hurting the economy, according to the company and its supporters. It could threaten services as varied as search engines, job listings, product reviews and displays of relevant news, songs, or entertainment, they added.

Section 230 guards "interactive computer services" by making sure they cannot be treated as the "publisher or speaker" of information provided by users. Legal experts note that companies could employ other legal defenses if Section 230 protections are curbed.

Calls have come from across the ideological and political spectrum - including Democratic President Joe Biden and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump - for a rethink of Section 230 to ensure that companies can be held accountable. Biden's administration urged the justices to revive the Gonzalez family's lawsuit.

Gonzalez, who had been studying in Paris, died when militants fired on a crowd at a bistro during the rampage that killed 130 people.

The 2016 lawsuit by her mother Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather Jose Hernandez and other relatives accused YouTube of providing "material support" to Islamic State in part by recommending the group's videos to certain users based on algorithmic predictions about their interests. The recommendations helped spread Islamic State's message and recruit jihadist fighters, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit was brought under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which lets Americans recover damages related to "an act of international terrorism." The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed it in 2021. The justices will hear the family's appeal of a lower court's decision largely based on immunity granted to social media companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. 

They will hear a related case involving Twitter Inc. on Wednesday.  American relatives of a Jordanian man named Nawras Alassaf slain in 2017 in an Istanbul nightclub shooting that killed 39 people - with Islamic State again claiming responsibility - accused Twitter in a lawsuit of aiding and abetting the group by failing to police the platform for its accounts or posts.  Twitter is appealing after a lower court allowed that lawsuit to proceed and found that the company refused to take "meaningful steps" to prevent Islamic State's use of the platform. 

Google has attracted support from various technology businesses, scholars, legislators, libertarians and rights groups worried that exposing platforms to liability would force them to remove content at even the hint of controversy, harming free speech. The company defended its practices. Without algorithmic sorting, it said, "YouTube would play every video ever posted in one infinite sequence - the world's worst TV channel."

 "This court should not undercut a central building block of the modern internet," Google told the justices in a filing. "Eroding Section 230's protection would create perverse incentives that could both increase removals of legal but controversial speech on some websites and lead other websites to close their eyes to harmful or even illegal content," it added.