fbpx

David Kahn - Senior Counsel

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.

Recent Posts

COVID-19 Business Loss Coverage Update

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…

Federal District Court in California Dismisses Hotel Owners’ COVID-19 Business Loss Lawsuit Based on Virus Exclusion in Policy

The Central District Court of California has dismissed the Complaint of two Fresno hotels claiming business losses to COVID-19. Following the trend of other California courts, the Central District Court found the Complaint failed to specifically allege facts supporting a claim for Business Income and Civil Authority coverage under the applicable Insurance Policy. Accordingly, the Court held the hotels’ COVID-19 related business losses were excluded from coverage under the Policy’s Virus Exclusion.

Ninth Circuit Limits Excess Insurers’ Ability to Question Settlement Payments by Lower Level Insurers Based on Improper Erosion Theory

In an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a second level excess insurer may question the propriety of settlement payments of lower level insurers based on an improper erosion theory. (AXIS Reinsurance Company v. Northrup Grumman Corp. (2020) 975 F. 3d 840.)  AXIS Reinsurance Company (“AXIS”) challenged the erosion of primary and first level excess limits through settlement payments for what it alleged was an uncovered disgorgement claim under the Employee Retirement Income…

Use It or Lose It: Owners of Condemned Property Have an Option to Repurchase When Government Fails to Timely Develop or Reauthorize Public Use

What happens when a city condemns private property for a stated public use but fails to follow through on the development of the public use?  Such was the issue recently decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles published on July 30, 2020. (WL 4361069). The Court held a public entity desiring to retain condemned property must either develop the public use or reauthorize its initial resolution within ten years of the date the original authorizing…

Rogue Mid-level Manager Exposes Company to Punitive Damages in Colucci v. T-Mobile

In the recently published 4th District Court of Appeal decision (Colucci v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal. App. 5th 442, WL 2059849) the court upheld an award of punitive damages against the company based on the conduct of a regional manager who terminated a store manager for cause and without warning based on an alleged pretextual conflict of interest. The Plaintiff alleged the real reason for the termination was retaliation for…

Workers’ Compensation Risk for After Hours Injuries at the Place of Employment

Injured employees are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. But what happens when an employee is injured after work at the place of employment while socializing with other workers or engaged in a recreational activity? The answer depends on the purpose for which the employee is at the place of employment and the degree to which the purpose is a condition…

Defending Phony Alter Ego Allegations in Real Estate Litigation

Frequently in real estate/premises liability litigation the plaintiff will allege the corporate entity holding title to the property in question is acting as the “alter ego” of an individual corporate representative, in an effort to hold the representative personally jointly and severally liable for any judgment against the corporation. This is commonly referred to as “piercing the corporate veil.” Typically, the allegations will be completely “manufactured” and…

JUDICIAL POWER PLAY: The Limits of Judicial Power and Public Entity Liability Addressed in Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District

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…

A Game of Chance: Special Verdict Form Drafted by Plaintiff’s Counsel Results in Defense Verdict

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…

The Context of Speech Matters for Purposes of Anti-SLAPP Analysis

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”).

Copyright © 2021 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.