Jeremy Freedman is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office whose practice focuses primarily on general liability cases. He has litigated cases involving personal injury, professional liability, directors and officers liability, errors and omissions, employment, and commercial claims and has represented individuals, retired naval officers, businesses, and banking institutions in both California state and Federal courts.
Mr. Freedman has successfully resolved a variety of cases involving catastrophic personal injury cases, wrongful death, toxic chemical spills, real estate, trucking, slip and fall, mixed martial arts including Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, health studio claims, wage and hour claims, sexual harassment, breach of contract, and bankruptcy disputes. In a case of first impression, Mr. Freedman successfully defended a multimillion dollar wrongful death action for failure to use an automatic external defibrillator on a motion for summary judgment, which was confirmed on appeal by the California Supreme Court. He has successfully tried breach of contract cases, been second chair on personal injury jury trials, and has defended claims for violation of automatic bankruptcy stays representing local and national banking institutions. He has also successfully resolved claims brought by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Mr. Freedman earned his J.D. magna cum laude in 2015 from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where he served as the Technical Editor for the Thomas Jefferson Law Review. He earned his B.S. and B.B.A. with a specialization in Finance magna cum laude from Ohio State University in 2001. Mr. Freedman is licensed to practice law in the state of California and was elected by his colleagues in San Diego to act as a board member for the San Diego Defense Lawyers Association.
In his free time, Mr. Freedman enjoys sailing, surfing, hiking, and spending time with his daughter. Mr. Freedman is an avid sailor who has participated in and won numerous regattas and enjoys sailing to Catalina Island.
All too often, property owners are sued after hiring an independent contractor who 1) causes injuries, or 2) has employees who sustained an injury while performing work. Under the Privette doctrine, such lawsuits would generally be barred under California law doctrine because there is a strong presumption that a property owner who hires an independent contractor delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the contractor. The Privette doctrine applies even where the property owner was at least partially to blame due its negligent hiring and where the independent contractor is has no employees or workers’ compensation insurance.
In the normal course of preparing to file a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, attorneys labor over crafting targeted requests for admission, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents to support their legal arguments. Every once in a while, the responding party will provide clear and complete responses unfettered by countless objections to support the motion. In one recent case, in response to defendant’s request for admission, plaintiff even admitted outright defendant did not cause the incident. In receiving such responses and/or admission, one’s gut reaction would reasonably be, “Gotcha!”
When filing a motion summary judgment, arguing defendant did not have duty to plaintiff is the gold standard. Whether a legal duty exists is a legal question not subject to a factual dispute that must be decided by the Court. On the other hand, attacking a complaint based on causation has its challenges. Motions for summary judgment based on causation often require expert declarations and facts. In fact, plaintiff attorneys advocate for retaining an expert immediately to create doubt and dispute defendant’s expert declaration.
Challenging a summons and complaint can prove to be an expensive and often futile endeavor that fails to achieve the intended goal of dismissal, given the Court’s leniency towards permitting plaintiff to amend or otherwise let plaintiff’s action proceed. Arizona’s abatement rule, which required plaintiff to serve defendant with a summons and complaint within the statutorily…
As with any lawsuit, it all begins with a plaintiff filing a lawsuit. After extensive litigation, and on the heels of a case altering event – whether it be a dispositive motion, discovery motion or expert designation, plaintiff’s deposition, or immediately before trial call – defendant makes an offer to settle. After several back and forth negotiations over the phone the parties reach a verbal settlement. Hurrah says all parties! That same evening, after accepting…
In 1771, John Adams foreshadowed the reality of excessive jury awards we routinely hear about in the news. In drafting the Seventh Amendment, John Adams envisioned “the duty of the jury. . . [was] to find a verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” At that time, a trial by jury was envisioned where the value of the case was over $20 dollars.
California’s Supreme Court recently set the stage for voiding all choice of law provisions in insurance contracts where the insured either resides or is insured in California and makes a first party claim. This is especially true where the law of another state would bar coverage for the insured. To wit, the California Supreme Court has made it clear – California has a strong public policy to avoid forfeiture of coverage.
Even where an employer maintains and strictly enforces comprehensive policies and procedure at to avoid workplace injuries, they are inevitable. Employees may have medical conditions that lead to subsequent injury. Employees do not always follow policies and procedures. In short, accidents happen. In Nevada, as with many other States, there is generally no duty to come to the aid of another. However, there are several exceptions to…
It is axiomatic that hosting parties and welcoming friends, families and even strangers into our home, serving alcohol, food and other arrangements has become engrained in our social fabric. Commonly accepted, with little regard for legal consequences, we desire to host the perfect party, make our guest feel welcome and ensure everyone has fun. Often, we overlook indiscretions that could have legal consequences, such as, a minor sneaking alcohol or a guest having one too many. Social responsibility would suggest that as host we consider the safety of our guests and even people our guests may come into contact with after they leave the party. The law, however, does not always encourage what may seem as the most socially responsible course of action.
In many workplace harassment cases, it is often difficult to gather evidence or produce witnesses to testify regarding instances of harassment for a number of reasons. Often, the harassing conduct may take place in private and is undocumented. Where the offending conduct is witnessed by others, social pressure and fear of retaliation for testifying against an employer exacerbate the challenges in obtaining evidence.