Jacob Felderman is a Partner in Tyson & Mendes’ Denver offices. Mr. Felderman has in-depth experience in a number of practice areas, including: general negligence, professional liability, premises liability, product liability, personal injury, and commercial & general civil litigation in California and Colorado.
Mr. Felderman earned his J.D. in 2003 from the University of Iowa, where he was a staff writer and Manager for the Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. He received his B.A. in English with honors from University of Iowa. In 1997, Mr. Felderman was a member of the University of Iowa’s Division I NCAA National Championship wrestling team.
Mr. Felderman has had a successful career as a litigator. He obtained a favorable jury verdict of 2% of plaintiff’s final demand in an admitted-liability auto accident case, in which plaintiff claimed life changing neck and back injuries. He successfully defended an international produce corporation sued after an alleged food-borne outbreak caused over 300 cases of Hepatitis A and multiple deaths in the Eastern United States. He has successfully defended C.P.A firms in suits involving multi-million-dollar embezzlement schemes alleging failure to uncover internal fraud during corporate audits.
He is a member of the Colorado and California bar. In addition to his regular civil litigation practice, Mr. Felderman volunteers as legal counsel to the Allied Climbers of San Diego, where he won a Federal administrative appeal against the U.S. Forest Service. The successful appeal will result in opening public lands to responsible recreational user groups, while balancing the need to protect local flora and fauna.
From 2009 to 2011, Mr. Felderman served as legal counsel and an expedition team member for National Geographic’s expedition in search of the lost tomb of Genghis Khan. He is a featured member in the National Geographic documentary, “Valley of the Khan’s.”
In his free time, Mr. Felderman enjoys rock climbing, mountaineering, skiing, and spending time with his wife and two sons.
Colorado has enacted a number of tort reform statutes. Typically, these statutes limit the amount of tort damages available to a plaintiff. For example, CRS § 13-21-102.5(3)(a) limits non-economic damages in a tort action to $468,010 (but this cap is increased to a maximum of $936,030 if the plaintiff can show by “clear and convincing” evidence that the higher cap is warranted).
Plaintiffs in Colorado are entitled to recover damages to “make them whole.” This category is known as “compensatory” damages. Generally, compensatory damages include economic damages and non-economic damages. Economic damages are the usual and natural consequence of the defendant’s conduct, like lost income and medical bills. Non-economic or “special” damages are less tangible and are peculiar to the plaintiff, like pain and suffering.
What happens when a homeowner discovers a defect in their home, like a leaky roof, and then waits more than two years before suing the roofer who installed the roof? The lawsuit would, of course, be barred by the statute of limitations because the homeowner stood on his rights for too long.
In California, drivers can purchase “uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage” (“UCM”). If the driver is later injured in an automobile accident, and the at-fault party has no insurance (or insufficient insurance), then UCM coverage allows the injured driver to recover against his own insurance company.
How do you defend against a lost income claim made by a self-employed plaintiff, when the plaintiff keeps little to no business records? This type of plaintiff is usually able to provide testimony about their revenue, but draws a blank when asked to describe related business expenses.
Employees often stray from their appointed tasks. Some go so far as to assault customers or other employees. Who is to blame when an employee assaults someone?
When a pedestrian trips and falls on the sidewalk, is the abutting landowner liable? As is often the case, the answer is, “it depends.”
When a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) improperly prepares a taxpayer’s returns, resulting in underpayment of state or Federal taxes, the taxpayer will incur various expenses. Specifically, the taxpayer will have to: 1) pay the outstanding taxes owed, 2) pay interest to the IRS and/or California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), 3) pay a penalty, and 4) pay corrective costs (i.e. cost to hire a new CPA to correct the mistake).
The surgically implanted medical device industry is highly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because federal law so prevalently occupies this arena, most state-law based tort actions are preempted.
Many taxpayers consult with their certified public accountant (CPA) before making significant financial transactions. Taxpayers consult with the expert so they can structure the transaction in a manner minimizing taxes.
But, what happens when the CPA underestimates the taxes due? What are the taxpayer claimant’s available damages? Is the taxpayer entitled to recover the difference between the taxes he expected to pay and the actual taxes due (i.e. “expectation damages”)? In this case, how does a taxpayer prove damages, and what defenses are available?