Christopher J. Feasel - Senior Counsel

Christopher J. Feasel is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Phoenix office.  His practice focuses on general liability, premises liability, products liability, and professional liability defense.  Mr. Feasel  represents individuals and businesses throughout California and Arizona.

Mr. Feasel has a vast litigation background, having conducted over 70 jury trials to verdict.  A former prosecutor, he set precedent in California by obtaining the first conviction for driving under the influence of Kava Kava and subsequently published an article in the California District Attorneys Association periodical based on his work.  Mr. Feasel conducts lectures and trainings on various topics of both criminal and civil litigation for public and private clients.  He has extensive experience defending personal injury actions, obtaining defense verdicts in a number of trials.

Mr. Feasel earned his J.D. in 2002 from Santa Clara University School of Law, where he served on the Honors Moot Court Board.  Mr. Feasel is licensed to practice law in Arizona and California.

In his free time, Mr. Feasel is a high school football official, and enjoys spending time with his family and two Cairn Terriers.  He enjoys traveling, sports, wine tasting, and is attempting to pick up golf.

Recent Posts

Arizona Case Law Update

The 54th Arizona Legislature began its First Regular Session on January 14, 2019 and within the first month saw the introduction of more than 900 bills. February 4 marked the deadline for introduction of bills in the Senate and February 11 marked the deadline for bills to be introduced in the House. February 22 marks the deadline for House bills to be heard before House standing Committees and Senate bills to be heard before Senate standing committees (with the exception of Rules and Appropriations).  Also by February 22, hundreds of bills will effectively be dead for the session for failure to receive a hearing (unless revived in another form) by these hearing deadlines. As a result, there will likely be a flurry of strike-everything amendments offered throughout the various committees as members attempt to keep bills alive that would otherwise die by failure to receive a hearing in the committee(s) to which the bills were originally assigned.  The next pending deadline is March 29, 2019 – the date by which Senate bills must be heard in House committees and House bills to be heard in Senate committees.

Represent Yourself at Your Own Risk: Garrow v Earley, Wells Fargo No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0053 (November 29, 2018)

Representing yourself in court is always an iffy proposition, as one such pro se litigant recently found out in Garrow v Earley, Wells Fargo.

Mary Garrow sued Joanne Early, a manager at Wells Fargo, after Ms. Garrow was ordered to leave the branch for talking on her phone while waiting to cash a check. Ms. Garrow filed suit against Ms. Earley and Wells Fargo for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), harassment, intimidation, hostile environment, and violating her civil rights.  She alleged Ms. Earley’s actions caused her severe emotional distress and “possible” bodily harm because she was embarrassed by the incident and was forced to drive to another Wells Fargo to conduct her business. She sought $60,000.00 in damages.

Appellate Court “Strips” Plaintiff of Victory: Dupray v. JAI Dining, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0599 (11-15-2018)

JAI Dining Services (“JAI”) appealed a jury verdict, which found it liable for negligently overserving alcohol to a patron that later drove while intoxicated and caused a collision that seriously injured Mark Dupray (“Dupray”).  The appellate court agreed with JAI and overturned the verdict, finding the trial court abused its discretion in not giving JAI’s requested jury instruction on superseding and intervening cause[1].

“When you’re a Jet…” Gang Violence and Negligence Claims: Stair v Maricopa County, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0758 (2018).

As a former gang prosecutor, I understand firsthand the devastation gang violence takes on communities.  But does that violence transcend into the civil world regarding negligence claims against municipalities, and specifically against a “gang task force?”  In Arizona, the recent case of Stair v Maricopa County, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0758 (2018) says no.

An Arbitrator’s Conflict of Interest and When a Party Should Object

When a plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant’s insurance company, which is greater than the defendant insured’s policy limits, a plaintiff may also file a claim against his own insurance company for underinsured motorist coverage. Underinsured motorist coverage allows a plaintiff to recover additional compensation, when defendant insured’s policy limit is not enough to cover his or her claim.

Arizona Case Law Update

Ah yes – the simple piñata: cute, cheap, and filled with delectable edibles waiting to have blindfolded children (and sometimes, adults) swing large wooden truncheons at to, literally, beat the stuffing out of. But what happens when the piñata activity is “no bueno?” One unfortunate soul found out in the recent case of Normandin v. Encanto Adventures LLC, No.1CA-CV-17-0373 (2018).

To MIDP or Not to MIDP: The Federal Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project, Year One

An overview of results from the May 18, 2018, Report of the Advisory Committee to the Northern District of Illinois On Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project: Survey Results

On April 19, 2018, the Federal Bar Association of Phoenix (FBA) hosted a panel of federal judges to discuss the progress of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP) in Arizona.  The goal was to obtain feedback from judges and attorneys as to how the project was working in Arizona after one year.  The success or failure of the MIDP could drastically change the landscape of discovery nationwide.

Update to Arizona Legislative Actions 2018

This has been a busy legislative session. The 53rd Arizona Legislature began its Second Regular Session on January 8, 2017, and within the first two weeks saw an introduction of more than 700 bills. The deadline of March 23, 2018, came and went for bills passing the House to be heard in a Senate standing committee and bills passing the Senate to be heard in a House standing committee. However, towards the end of the session, Gov. Doug Ducey became embroiled in the #RedforEd movement, which, among other items, sought additional funding for pay raises for teachers.  As a result, Gov. Ducey began a wave of vetoes until a suitable budget was passed.  Some of the proposed bills considered “locks” found themselves casualties of this process and will have to be introduced in the next legislative session.

I Got it, I Got it, I…Don’t Got it (But Now I’m Going to Sue!)

At the risk of dating myself, I fondly remember waiting on Sundays for my parents to finish reading the newspaper so I could read the “funnies.”[1]  One of my favorites was always the Peanuts cartoons featuring “good ol’ Charlie Brown.”  Invariably, Charlie Brown would attempt to play some sport, usually football or baseball, neither of which he was particularly skilled in.  When playing baseball, he would typically be put in the outfield where he could ostensibly do no harm.  Alas, more often than not, a pop-fly would head Charlie Brown’s way, which he would inevitably lose sight of, and which then promptly bonked him on the head, to the consternation of his team and the delight of his arch-nemesis, Lucy.  While no legal action ever became of this (which probably would not have made for a great cartoon anyway), such cannot be said for one similarly situated ballplayer out here in Arizona.

Copyright © 2019 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.