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.
Consistent with its mission to deliver justice for all, Tyson & Mendes served justice when it argued and won Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, the most impactful California Supreme Court decision of the twenty-first century and arguably the last fifty years…
Last year, we reported a California federal district court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the wife of a construction worker who claimed her husband contracted COVID-19 at work and brought the virus home, infecting her as well…
The Second District Court of Appeal recently held that the corporate and individual owners of a residence for the disabled had a legal duty to prevent the sexual assault of one of its residents.
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the highly contested “Dynamex ABC” test. The court held in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. the test in Dynamex applies retroactively when determining whether a worker should be classified as an employee or independent contractor for the purpose of wage and hour laws applies retroactively.
Could a Medi-Cal lien for recovery of advanced medical expenses be pre-empted by federal law? This was the issue recently decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in L.Q. v. California Hospital Medical Center.[i] The case involves the conflict between federal and state law on whether a state’s Medicaid program can legally claim a lien against a beneficiary’s personal injury settlement without violating the anti-lien provision in the federal Medicare Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held the state Medi-Cal lien was valid, allowing recovery of the portion of the settlement proceeds to be attributable to past medical care paid for by Medi-Cal.
In a recent decision, a federal district court for the Northern District of California was asked to resolve a discovery dispute involving the legal advice of in-house counsel which appeared in shared business documents
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”) regarding its denial of coverage to Oak Park Unified School District (“Oak Park”) based on a “design defect” exclusion in its policy, holding the denial was not in bad faith even though the Ninth Circuit had previously found the defect exclusion was ambiguous
In our April Newsletter, Tyson & Mendes reported a California federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the wife of a construction worker. Plaintiff claimed her husband contracted COVID-19 at work and brought the virus home infecting her as well. Following the dismissal, the district court judge gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. At a hearing on May 7, 2021, the court upheld the dismissal without further leave to amend. As of this date, it is unknown whether plaintiff will appeal.
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the wife of a construction worker who claimed her husband contracted COVID-19 at work and brought the virus home infecting her as well. The court held workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the wife’s claim.
According to Law360, there are over 1,400 federal lawsuits fighting denials by insurance carriers for COVID-19 business loss coverage and over 600 such suits in state court. In last month’s Newsletter, we reported the dismissal of the complaint of two Fresno hotels claiming business losses based on the virus exclusion in their respective insurance policies continuing the trend of California courts. (West Coast Hotel Management, LLC…