Kelly Denham - Senior Counsel

kdenham@tysonmendes.com

Los Angeles, CA: (213) 745-8600

San Diego, CA: (858) 459-4400

Riverside, CA: (951) 248-1260

Kelly Denham is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. Her practice focuses primarily on general liability, personal injury, and insurance litigation.

Ms. Denham has successfully resolved several multi-million-dollar personal injury matters within insurance policy limits where claimed damages greatly exceeded the limits. She briefed, argued, and won an anti-SLAPP matter before the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Ms. Denham also successfully argued and won a Motion for Summary Judgment attacking causation, effectively dismissing the case prior to trial.

Ms. Denham earned her J.D. in 2012 from Loyola Law School. She is licensed to practice law in California. Ms. Denham is a member of the San Diego Defense Lawyers’ Organization.

In her free time, Ms. Denham enjoys spending time with her family and friends. She is an avid runner and can be found in the gym or running on the beach when she is not in the office.

Recent Posts

Tyson & Mendes LLP Announces Promotions in San Diego Offices

SAN DIEGO (Jan. 15, 2018) – Civil defense firm Tyson & Mendes LLP has announced four promotions in its San Diego headquarters, elevating Tracey Angelopoulos from Senior Counsel to Partner, Justin Evenson from Senior Counsel to Team Leader, Jessica Heppenstall from Team Leader to Senior Team Leader, and Kelly Denham from Associate to Team Leader.

California’s Premises Liability Law: When Does Your Insured Owe a Duty?

The law surrounding premises liability in California is vast. In essence, premises liability describes a landowner’s liability for a person’s injuries or damages arising from his ownership, maintenance, or control of real property. Premises liability is a form of negligence, where the possessor of the premises owes a duty of care to third persons who enter the property to exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) This requires landowners, and those who simply maintain property, to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition. (CACI 1002.) A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence. (Brooks, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1619.)

Toxic Torts: An Overview

A toxic tort is a legal claim for harm caused by exposure to a dangerous substance. Typically, a plaintiff claims exposure to a chemical caused the plaintiff’s injury or disease. Toxic torts can arise out of a wide variety of factual situations, such as exposure to air, land, and groundwater contaminated with hazardous substances. Many traditional theories of tort liability and defenses may be utilized in toxic tort cases.

Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles: $1 Million Judgment Reversed In a Racial Discrimination Case

Plaintiff Jabari Jumaane (“plaintiff”), an African American firefighter, began working for the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) in 1986. Throughout the 1990s, plaintiff complained about racism in the fire department. For example, in 1991, plaintiff wrote a letter to the City Council protesting racism on behalf of an organization of African American firefighters. Plaintiff gave an interview in 1994 regarding racial issues in the Department. Plaintiff also testified to racism in the Department at a hearing of the City Council. In 1997, plaintiff gave deposition testimony about race discrimination in the Department as a result of a lawsuit brought by a Department employee.

Prejudgment Interest and the Interplay With C.C.P. Section 998 Offers to Compromise

Prejudgment interest can have a sizeable effect on the recovery of damages in California. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3287, a party is entitled to recover prejudgment interest where the damages are “certain” or “capable of being made certain by calculation” from the time the right to recover arises. (Civ. C. § 3287(a).) One purpose of the award is to make the party whole as of the date of the initial injury. (Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 663.)

The Intricacies Behind California Anti-SLAPP Motions

The California legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 to provide for the early dismissal of meritless suits aimed at chilling the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. (See C.C.P. § 425.16(a); Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 858-59.)

The Duty to Defend and Recovery from Cumis Counsel

Under the provisions of Civil Code Section 2860, an insurance carrier providing defense has certain control over the payment of attorney’s fees to independent, or Cumis, counsel. The case discussed

California Case Law Update

EMPLOYMENT Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (May 4, 2015) WL 1964947 Facts: Plaintiff Loring Winn Williams (“Plaintiff”) sued defendant Chino Valley Independent Fire District (“defendant”) for employment discrimination

Joint and Several Liability: A California Primer

“Joint and several liability” comes into play in a personal injury lawsuit involving negligence causes of action or an intentional tort asserted against multiple defendants. Joint and several liability allows

Pregnant Women in the Workforce

A recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court held pregnant workers may claim the same accommodations which employers grant to similarly restricted workers. In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Copyright © 2018 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.