Jury Verdicts & Settlements

Latest jury verdicts, settlements, and legal outcome analysis

$40M Jury Verdict: Tech Usurpation and Unjust Enrichment

Taxinet Corporation partnered with former politician Santiago Leon to pitch its established Ecuadorian ride-hailing mobile application to government officials in Mexico City. Relying on oral joint venture agreements, Taxinet shared its proprietary tech infrastructure, app backend configurations, database architecture, and financial forecasting models. Once the municipal logistics contract was secured, Leon abruptly severed corporate ties, refused to execute a non-disclosure agreement, and allegedly told the Secretary of Mobility that Taxinet’s software was a fraud. Leon then utilized Taxinet's operational blueprints to launch a copycat ride-hailing program called Libre through his own separate entity. Following a federal trial, the jury found that Leon had been unjustly enriched by stripping Taxinet of its assets and awarded the Plaintiff $40,000,000 in compensatory damages.

Motor Vehicle Accident

$176M Verdict for Family After Fatal Street Racing Crash

On September 29, 2020, a horrific street racing incident shattered the Iskander family during an evening walk in Westlake Village, California. While crossing Triunfo Canyon Road inside a lawful, marked crosswalk, 11-year-old Mark and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander were struck by a speeding Mercedes GLE driven by Rebecca June Grossman. Grossman, who was racing her boyfriend Scott Erickson at speeds reaching 70 mph in a 45 mph zone while under the influence of alcohol, failed to yield and fled the scene after the catastrophic impact. The boys died from severe blunt force trauma, while their mother and younger brother directly witnessed the tragedy. Following an emotional trial, a Los Angeles County jury found Grossman and Erickson negligent, delivering a historic $176,000,000 verdict for wrongful death and severe emotional distress.

Employment Discrimination

Arizona Race Discrimination & Hostile Work Environment Trial

Michael L. Ruiz, a long-term Mexican American employee and Director of Marketing at Magellan Financial & Insurance Services, LLC, initiated federal litigation alleging severe workplace discrimination and wrongful termination based on his race and national origin. Ruiz claimed his supervisor targeted his heritage through continuous verbal harassment, stripped away his professional responsibilities to make him run personal errands, and eventually terminated his employment under the false pretext of a lack of available work. Magellan completely denied all allegations, maintaining that all personnel adjustments were driven strictly by legitimate, non-discriminatory business needs. Following a trial in the District of Arizona, the jury systematically rejected the Plaintiff's claims under Section 1981 and Title VII, resulting in a total defense verdict and a dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Premises Liability

California Jury Awards Over $2M in Store Slip and Fall

On December 4, 2019, shopper Richard Vega suffered severe physical and emotional injuries when he slipped on a wet surface immediately upon entering a Walmart Supercenter in Anaheim, California. Vega filed a premises liability lawsuit against Walmart, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, alleging that the retail giant failed to maintain a safe environment and neglected to correct a known hazard. While Walmart argued comparative negligence on the part of the shopper, the jury ultimately found the retailer overwhelmingly responsible for the hazardous condition. On January 27, 2026, the jury returned a special verdict totaling $2,091,371.58, awarding substantial damages for future medical care as well as past and future pain and suffering.

Breach of Contract

MN Jury Awards $900K for Fraud in Hemp THC Joint Venture

In Jon Wood, et al. v. Lift Bridge Brewing Technologies, LLC, et al., a group of investors known as the Tutus Parties filed suit after their joint venture to launch a hemp-derived THC and CBD beverage brand, Lyvly, Inc., collapsed. The Plaintiffs alleged that Lift Bridge Brewing and its executives fraudulently concealed a local city moratorium that banned cannabis manufacturing, failed to deliver viable product samples, and misallocated startup capital to promote their own beer products. While Lift Bridge argued the relationship was strictly bound by a manufacturing contract and failed due to a lack of investor funding, the Washington County District Court jury found that a legal joint venture existed. The jury held Lift Bridge liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding the Plaintiffs $900,000 in damages.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Corporate Coup & Financial Elder Abuse $31M Law Firm Verdict

When a prominent environmental attorney suffered a brief, temporary bout of brain fog in late 2021, his partner saw a window of opportunity. Exploiting a short-lived medical conservatorship that carried absolutely no financial restrictions, the minority shareholder executed a secret corporate action. He signed a written consent packed with false statements, claiming the founder was of "unsound mind" and legally disqualified from practicing law. Armed with these fabrications, he wiped out the founder's board seat, terminated his executive roles, and transferred all of his majority stock directly to the corporation. A Sacramento jury fiercely rejected the takeover, exposing a calculated pattern of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and financial elder abuse. The final judgment completely restored the founder's ownership rights and ordered the rogue partner to pay a massive $31,029,670 principal award.

Intellectual Property Law

Insulet v EOFlow: $452M Trade Secret Verdict Reversed

Following a high-stakes, five-week federal trial, a Massachusetts jury originally handed Insulet Corporation a massive victory, finding that South Korean rival EOFlow Co. had willfully and maliciously misappropriated core trade secrets—including CAD files, manufacturing processes, and algorithms—to clone Insulet's Omnipod insulin pump system. Though the district Court heavily reduced the initial $452 million verdict down to a finalized $59.4 million judgment coupled with a permanent worldwide sales injunction, the legal tide completely turned on appeal. On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely reversed the liability judgment and vacated the damages and injunction. The appellate Court ruled that the jury's findings on the statute of limitations lacked substantial evidence, determining that Insulet possessed enough public information regarding EOFlow's hiring of its former engineers and subsequent product similarities to file a claim long before the critical August 2020 statutory deadline.

Personal Injury

Malpractice Jury Verdict: $7.5M for Botched Penile Surgery

This medical malpractice action arose from a severely botched three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis procedure performed at El Camino Hospital. A patient with a history of bladder cancer underwent the operation to address erectile dysfunction, but the treating urologist incorrectly punctured his colon and embedded the device reservoir directly inside the organ. The catastrophic error necessitated emergency surgery, a prolonged hospital stay, and the placement of a colostomy bag. Furthermore, during his initial recovery, medical professionals failed to identify or communicate a malignant stomach tumor visible on a routine CT scan. By the time the cancer was discovered six months later by outside specialists, it had metastasized to the liver and advanced to stage four. Following deliberations, a Santa Clara County jury found the urologist negligent, awarding the Plaintiff $50,000 in economic damages and $7.5 million in noneconomic damages.

• Corporate Fraud

Boeing Beats LOT Polish Airlines in Historic 737 MAX Trial

In a historic legal battle, Polish national airline LOT S.A. sued The Boeing Company in federal Court, alleging that the aviation giant intentionally concealed critical safety flaws and operational risks regarding the 737 MAX's MCAS software. Seeking up to $250 million in damages, LOT argued that Boeing's deceptive marketing and omission of pilot-training requirements induced them into leasing a compromised fleet. Following a high-stakes trial in Seattle, the jury delivered a complete defense verdict for Boeing, finding no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment, marking a major corporate victory for the aerospace manufacturer.