David Kahn is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office specializing in the defense of complex, multi-party general litigation and personal injury matters. Mr. Kahn has extensive litigation experience representing individuals, businesses and employers in California state and federal district courts.
Mr. Kahn has successfully resolved many cases involving complex personal injury, wrongful death, real estate, fraud, as well as state and federal workers’ compensation matters. He has successfully briefed several dispositive motions including a residential homicide, briefed a motion in limine to exclude expert testimony in a home invasion shooting case which provided the basis for an overturn on appeal and settled a complex real estate fraud case involving a tourmaline mine. Mr. Kahn also won a first workers’ compensation trial obtaining a take nothing award against an injured worker who claimed she obtained Lyme disease while working part-time for a nursery.
Mr. Kahn received his J.D. in 2000 from California Western School of Law in San Diego earning an Academic Achievement Award in Current Issues in Constitutional Law. He was admitted to the California State Bar in 2000. Mr. Kahn also holds a M.A. in English from San Diego State University and a B.A. from California State University, Northridge.
Outside the practice of law, Mr. Kahn enjoys spending time with his daughter, cooking, listening to his extensive music collection, and following Cleveland sports teams.
Set within in a classic constitutional power struggle between the legislature and the judiciary, the 2019 California Supreme Court opinion in Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District (7 Cal. 5th 798) held statutory immunities for public entities are affirmative defenses and may be waived if not timely raised. The broad holding categorically overturns a line of cases which held statutory immunities, which shield public entities from liability, is…
In a very favorable case for public entity defendants, the Second District Court of Appeal recently upheld a defense verdict for the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”). (Fuller v. Dept. of Transportation (2019, WL 3933563). The appeal brought by plaintiff challenged the verdict primarily on grounds the special verdict form drafted by plaintiffs’ counsel was inconsistent with and not supported by the evidence because the jury did in…
In a recent opinion, FilmOn.com v. Double Verify (2019) 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 594, the California Supreme Court held context as well as content of speech is a relevant factor in evaluating whether the speech is entitled to protection by way of a special motion to strike under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, commonly known as the anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy statute (“SLAPP”).
Last year, the California Supreme Court announced a new standard, known as the “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor in wage and hour cases. (Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903). Two weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the Dynamex test applies retroactively in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (2019 WL 1945001). As discussed below, the Vasquez decision could have far-reaching economic implications.
The Privette-Toland doctrine was created from a series of California Supreme Court cases protecting landowners and other hirers of independent contractors from lawsuits by employees of the independent contractor who sustain on the job injuries. The Privette-Toland doctrine is an important defense in premises liability/construction cases because, under the right circumstances, the doctrine may provide grounds…
In a unanimous decision, New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira (2019) 139 S. Ct. 532, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a nationwide dispute amongst the federal circuits regarding the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts for transportation workers classified as independent contractors. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Judge Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held it is for the court to…
The California legislature has enacted several interesting and significant laws which go into effect January 1, 2019. These diverse laws range from areas of employment law/sexual harassment, Cannabis regulation, roadway safety, and environmental health and safety. The following will briefly provide some highlights:
The California Supreme Court recently upheld a Court of Appeal decision which allows evidence of industry practice in certain product design defect cases. (Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 21). The product at issue in Kim was a 2005 Toyota Tundra which was not equipped with vehicle stability control (“VSC”). Specifically, the high court held in an appropriate case a jury may consider whether a product is as safe, or safer, than any product on the market in evaluating whether on balance the product’s design is defective. As demonstrated below, the Kim decision is significant for multiple reasons. It allows a product manufacturer to embrace its design decisions based on free market economic realities. The decision further diffuses juror anger based on a plaintiff’s one-sided and misleading evidentiary slight-of-hand intended to paint the manufacturer as a danger to the community by disregarding consumer safety.
California’s Summary Judgment Statute (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c) was designed to “penetrate evasive language and adept pleading and to ascertain, by means of affidavits, the presence or absence of triable issues of facts.” (Preach v. Monter Rainbow (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1441). A situation which often comes up in practice arises when a party submits a declaration from an expert either in support of or in opposition to a summary judgment/adjudication motion. Because a summary judgment motion is often filed well before the time for designation of experts provided by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034, several significant procedural issues arise including (1) May the expert who gave the Declaration in support or opposition to the summary judgment motion be deposed? (2) If so, what is the scope of the deposition; and (3) Is the expert entitled to fees for testifying? The Second District Court of Appeal case, St. Mary Medical Center v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 1531, provides some guidance on these issues.
In a recent opinion, the California Supreme Court adopted a new test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor in certain contexts. SeeDynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, (April 30, 2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, [232 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 416 P. 3d 1].. The Court adopted what is known as the “ABC” test used in other jurisdictions. Under the test, a worker is an independent contractor only when the following are established: (A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. (Id. at p. 8). It is important to note however, this new test is limited (at least for now) to the application of Wage Orders which define the term “employ” as “to engage, suffer, or permit to work.”