Kristin Mathis is an Associate in the Los Angeles office of Tyson & Mendes. Her practice focuses on general liability litigation. She specializes in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases involving premises liability, hotel and restaurant related claims, government entity liability, school district liability, personal injury defense, and all matters related to transportation.
Mrs. Mathis recently second chaired a trial involving catastrophic injuries from a trucking accident, which resulted in a complete defense verdict for her client, who was facing a demand of $3.5 million. Mrs. Mathis also recently successfully filed and argued a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant/bar, saving her client $7 million. She has extensive experience drafting press releases and managing media for high profile clients and high profile cases. Mrs. Mathis recently filed a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death case alleging negligence and dependent adult abuse, which resulted in the plaintiff agreeing to dismiss the dependent adult abuse claims. This eliminated her client’s exposure to pre-death pain and suffering and attorney’s fees. In the same case, Mrs. Mathis negotiated a Mary Carter Agreement, which resulted in her client contributing $0 to the settlement, while the co-defendant paid $23.5 million.
Mrs. Mathis graduated with honors from Loyola Law School with concentrations in Entertainment Law and Criminal Justice. During law school, Mrs. Mathis volunteered for the Project for the Innocent and assisted in obtaining the exonerations of two innocent men. Mrs. Mathis graduated manga cum laude from California State University, Northridge where she received her B.A. in Political Science, minored in Spanish, and was the Captain of the nationally ranked varsity water polo team. She is admitted to practice in the state courts of California and the Central District of the United States District Court. Mrs. Mathis is a member of the academic honor society Phi Beta Kappa.
In her free time, Mrs. Mathis enjoys reading, running, Pilates, yoga. She also enjoys walking her golden retriever, Duncan, with her husband.
Recent PostsPlaintiff Did Not File an Opposition. Now what?
As defense attorneys, we often feel frustrated by the application of state court rules and the apparent leniency granted to plaintiffs. It is unimaginable to think about blowing a deadline to file a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) and then the court allowing you to file it late – this would never be permitted. But for some reason, when plaintiff’s Opposition to the same MSJ is late, or plaintiff needs extra time to conduct discovery (despite having 75 days’ notice of the Motion), courts and judges bend over backwards to accommodate them. By being armed with some case law, we can level the playing field.Using Criminal Backgrounds in a Civil Case
NRS 50.095: Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
- For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime is admissible but only if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted.
99.9 percent of all cases filed in Arizona never make it to the jury. While many cases can resolve informally between the attorneys; the most successful strategy for resolution tends to be private mediation. As such, attorneys should prepare for mediation as thoroughly as they would prepare for trial.When Multiple Negligent Acts are considered a “Single Occurrence” under Arizona Law
According to an Arizona Court of Appeals holding, a single event caused by several independent acts is a single occurrence under an insurance policy, when the policy defines “occurrence” as an “accident.” Cincinnati Indemnity Company v. Southwestern Line Constructors Joint Apprenticeship and Training Program, et al., No. 1 CA-CV 17-0238 (May 31, 2018).