Morgan Van Buren is a Partner in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office and a member of the firm’s Complex Trial Team. His practice focuses primarily on general liability and high exposure litigation. Mr. Van Buren has significant litigation experience, including handling of matters involving diverse damages claims and potential excess exposure.
Mr. Van Buren has secured the defense and complete indemnification of clients on multiple occasions. He has negotiated several favorable settlements in multi-party litigation, and nuisance value settlements in premises liability actions. Mr. Van Buren also has extensive trial preparation experience which has contributed to several successful verdicts, including drafting and successfully arguing motions in limine and a motion to strike and tax defense costs for multi-million-dollar jury trials.
Mr. Van Buren earned his B.A. from the University of Michigan in 2003, and his J.D. from Southwestern Law School in 2011. While in law school, he clerked for the California Court of Appeal, reviewing and evaluating applications for discretionary writ. Mr. Van Buren is licensed to practice law in California.
In his free time, Mr. Van Buren enjoys long walks on the beach with his wife and Golden Retriever.
Recent Posts
The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the Regents of the University of California (“Regents”) in a case arising out of a tragic bicycle accident that occurred on the Great Meadow Bikeway located on the campus of the University of California, Santa Cruz (“UCSC”). The case – Burgueno v. Regents of the University of California (2015) WL 9700324 – strengthens governmental immunity for injuries sustained on property open to the public for “recreational purposes.”
It happens during every Major League Baseball game – a ball is batted out of the field-of-play and into the grandstand. Sometimes even a bat or sections of a broken bat will be launched into the stands. This of course poses an injury risk to the spectators, especially those seated along the first and third base foul lines.
The Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) subjects employers to strict liability for injuries sustained by employees while in the course and scope of employment. The Act also makes workers’ compensation benefits the employee’s sole and exclusive remedy against the employer.
Contract disputes are often governed by arbitration clauses. Arbitration serves as a relatively simple, quick, and efficient method of resolving controversies. The right to compel arbitration arises from the parties’
California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) statute was enacted because the Legislature found there was a “disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the
The California Court of Appeal recently held that a release signed by a minor equestrian rider effectively extinguished a coach’s duty of ordinary care to the rider, such that the coach could rely on the release as a defense to wrongful death claims.
The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed an award of summary judgment in favor of Shell Oil Co., ruling Shell was not liable for secondary off-premises asbestos exposure.
On November 17, 2014, a California federal jury awarded $185 million in punitive damages to a San Diego woman who alleged she was fired by AutoZone Stores, Inc. after she complained she was demoted following the birth of her child. The $186 million award is believed to be the largest employment law verdict for an individual in U.S. history. The record award, however, is likely to be reduced on appeal.
In what can be seen as a sign that California courts are beginning to evolve with the technology that has become so prevalent in trial presentations, the Court of Appeal recently held that trial technology costs are recoverable by the prevailing party.
On December 16, 2013, the California Superior Court ordered three current or former paint companies to pay $1.1 billion toward an abatement fund to be used to replace or contain lead paint in millions of California homes. The order was issued pursuant to the Court’s ruling on a lawsuit filed by ten city and county governments in California. The lawsuit, People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al., alleged the defendant companies’ sale of lead-based paint created a public nuisance and that such companies should pay the plaintiff municipalities for the cost of abating the problem.