David Ramirez is an AV rated Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. His practice focuses primarily on general liability, commercial and residential construction, and insurance litigation. Mr. Ramirez’s extensive litigation experience includes representing individuals and businesses across all California state and federal district courts.
Mr. Ramirez has successfully resolved a variety of cases involving complex business, construction defects, insurance coverage, and class action disputes. Recently, Mr. Ramirez successfully completed a three-month long, multi-million-dollar trial which resulted in a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of his client. Mr. Ramirez also successfully settled a number of cases on behalf of developer/builder entities as well as subcontractors, material providers and suppliers.
Mr. Ramirez earned his J.D. in 1988 from University of San Diego School of Law. He is licensed to practice law in California and is a member of the San Diego Defense Lawyers. He was named one of the “Top Lawyers in San Diego” for Complex Litigation by San Diego Magazine from 2013 to 2017; “Top Lawyers in Southern California” for Litigation by Los Angeles Times for 2013, 2014 and 2015; and “Top Lawyers in California” for Litigation by American Lawyers Media for 2013 and 2014.
In his free time, Mr. Ramirez enjoys spending time with his family. He is also an avid oenophile, having served at wine judging and other events.
In the recent case entitled, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc., (2019) 32 Cal. App.5th 662, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, in a decision which would have pleased even the donut master himself, Homer Simpson, clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, in order…
In the recent case entitled Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Court of Alameda County, (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 485, the Second District Court of Appeal addressed under what circumstances a party may “supplement” its experts by identifying additional experts to testify on subject matters in which the party had not previously designated an expert.
Recently, in the case of Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. (2019) Cal. App.5th 976, the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, addressed whether a commercial condominium association’s insurance carrier could subrogate against the tenants (aka lessees) of one of its member unit owners.
In the recent decision in McMillin Homes Construction v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2019 WL 2366468) the Fourth District Court of Appeal continued a recent trend of finding coverage for additional insureds in construction related cases.
Recently, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. (Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637). Generally, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases.
The Privette Doctrine arises from a 1993 California Supreme Court case entitled Privette v. Superior Court (1993)5 Cal.4th 689, which provides that a higher-tiered party such as an owner or general contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party such as a subcontractor on a construction project. There are, however, a number of exceptions to the Privette Doctrine. One of these exceptions is known as the “retained…
In the recent case of Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Engel Insulation Inc. (2018 WL 6259032; November 30, 2018), The Third District Court of Appeal ruled a Complainant in Intervention could not maintain an affirmative action against subcontractors to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending its suspended insured in an underlying action.
In the recent case of William Jae Kim, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. (2018 WL 4057248), the California Supreme Court affirmed the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal decision which previously affirmed the trial court judgment after a jury found for defendant in a product liability case. Plaintiffs claimed the pickup truck was defective because its standard configuration did not…
In the recent case entitled Webster v. Claremont Yoga (2018 WL 3913660), a yoga participant alleged she was injured when an instructor adjusted her posture and brought a resulting negligence suit. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed expert opinion was required to rebut defendant yoga instructor’s expert’s declaration that the instructor’s conduct in adjusting a yoga participant’s posture during class was consistent with standard of care in the yoga industry, because a lay person’s common knowledge did not include the conduct required of a yoga instructor in a particular situation.
In Willhide-Michiulis the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a mountain ski area was not liable for a snowboarder’s injuries caused by a collision with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The severely injured plaintiff snowboarder argued the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she signed as a requisite to her season-pass agreement. The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defense stating the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and as a result there was no gross negligence. Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area LLC (June 27, 2018; 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7020)