Emily Straub is Senior Counsel at Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. Her practice focuses on defending personal injury, general liability, and professional liability claims. Ms. Straub’s practice is also geared towards representing businesses of all sizes, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, in business disputes and employment litigation.
Ms. Straub has aggressively and successfully defended local and national businesses, attorneys, design professionals, construction contractors, truckers, corporate officers, accountants, and non-profit organizations. Such representation has concerned a wide variety of pre-litigation and litigation matters involving wrongful death, catastrophic personal injury, products liability, premises liability, property damage, breach of contract, professional negligence, wrongful termination, and disability access claims. Ms. Straub has authored a diverse range of successful dispositive and non-dispositive motions in state and federal court, and defeated multiple appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As a primary handling attorney, Ms. Straub has extensive experience in all aspects of discovery and other pre-trial litigation work, as well as trial preparation.
Ms. Straub earned a J.D. in 2008 from Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA. She earned a B.A. in English in 2002, magna cum laude, from Clark University in Worcester, MA. Ms. Straub is licensed to practice law in all Courts of the State of California; the United States District Court for the Southern, Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is a member of the California State Bar, San Diego Defense Lawyers, and Lawyers Club of San Diego.
When she is not working, Ms. Straub likes to spend time with family, friends, and her rescue dog, Oscar. She enjoys hiking, the beach, and live music.
Assembly Bill 248, which became Nevada law on July 1, 2019, prevents defendants in civil and administrative actions from requiring certain types of information be kept confidential in a settlement agreement. More specifically, a plaintiff cannot be precluded from disclosing information concerning claims of…
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 2019 WL 3022773
Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist., 2019 WL 3071308
Nodal v. Cal-West Rain, Inc., 2019 WL 3213856
In Barriga Figueroa v. Prieto Mariscal (2019) 441 P.3d 818, the Washington Supreme Court addressed the following question: Is a personal injury protection (“PIP”) application submitted to an insurance company on behalf of a pedestrian injured by the insurance company’s primary insured privileged work product? The answer: Yes.
Hernandez v. City & County of Denver, 2018 WL 5074557
Stella Hernandez sued Deputy Sheriff Tracey Dodson and other Denver Detention Center employees for personal injuries she sustained while incarcerated. In her Complaint, Ms. Hernandez advances allegations of negligence, as well as willful and wanton conduct.
General Standard for Recovery
To prevail on a litigation-based legal malpractice claim, plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the attorney (and/or law firm) owed a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise under similar circumstances; (2) defendant breached this duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from defendant’s negligence. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 833.) The elements of a legal malpractice claim, on their face, appear to suggest a plaintiff can recover all damages directly and proximately caused by his/her attorney’s negligence. However, the actual scope of recoverable damages is much more limited, controlled by what is commonly referred to as the “case-within-a-case” standard.
In Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit was tasked with answering this question: Can an employer justify paying a woman less than a man due to her prior salary history? Its answer: No.
Danko v. Conyers, 2018 WL 774443
Debra Danko filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against David Conyers, M.D., the doctor who performed carpal tunnel release surgery on Ms. Danko’s right wrist. Following the conclusion of Dr. Conyers’ post-operative care, Ms. Danko learned she contracted a serious bacterial infection from the surgery. Dr. Conyers did not test for infection during post-operative care. The severity of infection, however, required Ms. Danko to have her forearm amputated. She alleged Dr. Conyers was responsible for the amputation for failing to test for and detect the infection at a time when less drastic treatment options could have cured the infection.
Multi-party litigation provides co-defendants with an opportunity to optimize the use of damages experts. Such environment, by its nature, necessarily encourages joint expert retention and fee sharing. Why? No defendant wants multiple repetitive expert opinions on damages – it is a waste of time and it will bore the jury. Additionally, no defendant wants to take the chance of there being divergent defense expert opinions on damages. Competing opinions could undermine the credibility of all defense opinions on a particular subject simply because they are not unified. Opinion considerations aside, the sheer cost of damages experts provides great incentive to share in their fees. But coordinating joint retention and fee sharing can be a challenge at times. Here are some suggestions to streamline such an arrangement.
Witness credibility can make or break a case. This is especially true in an admitted liability, damages only lawsuit. The Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Christ v. Schwartz, 2016 WL 4255012, demonstrates the worst case scenario for a Plaintiff in an admitted liability case where Plaintiff loses all credibility in the eyes of the jury.
WRONGFUL DEATH Burgueno v. The Regents of the University of California, 2015 WL 9700324 Facts: Teresa Burgueno and her daughter filed a wrongful death action against The Regents of the