David Ramirez - Partner

David Ramirez is an AV rated Partner 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.

Recent Posts

Insurers Suing Insurers for Reimbursement

Recently, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed equitable causes of action.  Specifically, the court reviewed cases when a paving subcontractor’s insurer brought action against a general contractor’s insurer…

Don’t Wait to Review Those Motions for Summary Judgment

Attorneys should be aware of the basic but essential need for timeliness for court filings.  In California, a recent case affirmed the importance of diligence and timely filings.  In Braganza v. Albertson’s LLC, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing for a Motion for Summary Judgment and thus, granted the defense’s motion.  Plaintiff’s counsel had sought the continuance on the ground that she needed additional discovery to oppose the motion but did not demonstrate diligence in timely conducting discovery before seeking the continuance.

David Ramirez Named Partner at Tyson & Mendes in San Diego

SD Metro – June 21

David Ramirez has been elevated to partner at Tyson & Mendes LLP, a San Diego insurance and civil litigation defense firm.

Tyson & Mendes Announces Four New Partners Michael Drews, Candice Hamant, Allison Lawrence and David Ramirez Promoted to Partner

SAN DIEGO (June 8, 2021) – Leading insurance and civil litigation defense firm Tyson & Mendes LLP announced today the promotion of Michael Drews, Candice Hamant, Allison Lawrence and David Ramirez to partner. Drews joins the firm’s partnership in Denver, Hamant and Lawrence in Northern California, and Ramirez in the firm’s San Diego headquarters.

California’s Right to Repair Act Does Not Preclude All Causes of Actions

In the matter of State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., the Court of Appeal Second District dealt with a product manufacturer trying to dodge a subrogation action based on the Right to Repair Act. The Court of Appeal determined the Right to Repair Act governing construction defect litigation does not preclude a homeowner, or its insurer, from bringing causes of action which fall outside of the Act.

In California, Alleged Defects Caused By Continuing Loss May Be Question of Fact

In the recent case of Guastello v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2021), the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District held triable issues of material fact exist which preclude summary judgment for an insurer seeking to disclaim coverage on the basis the “occurrence” pre-dated the policy period where a dispute exists as to the timing of the subject “occurrence.”

In California, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims May Apply in Cases Involving Contemporaneous Observation Through Technology

In the recent matter of Ko v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., (2020 WL 7639590; December 23, 2020) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District determined the present requirement for a claim of negligent infliction of emotion distress brought on behalf of a bystander, was satisfied where plaintiff was present virtually with the aid of technology.

Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation – A Look at Subrogation in California

In the recent case of Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation (2020) 52 Cal.App. 5th 571, the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim, explaining an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an indemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision.  In other words, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights as the insured. . . [h]ere . . . [the insurer] was seeking to stand…

Negligence: Revisiting the Privette Doctrine

In the recent case of Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 192, The Second District Court of Appeal revisited the issue of the “Privette Doctrine” and the exceptions to it.  Ever vigilant as to the Courts continued expansion of the “exceptions” to the Privette Doctrine, it was refreshing to see the Court instead merely review the facts of the case in context of the prior holdings, which created those exceptions to Privette.  If anything, the Court appeared to clarify the issues of active versus passive negligence in application to the Privette exception.

Recalcitrant Contractual Indemnitors Beware: Court of Appeal Upholds Equitable Subrogation Claim of Contractual Indemnitee’s Insurer for Defense Costs

In the recent matter of Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App. 5th 216, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer.  Upon review, the Court of Appeal found all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and thus, the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. The key policy informing the holding is to dis-incentivize contractors from avoiding their contractual indemnity obligations.

Copyright © 2001–2022 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.