Po Waghalter - Senior Counsel

Po Waghalter is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Los Angeles office. With over a decade of experience, her practice focuses on general liability, product liability, and personal injury defense. Ms. Waghalter specializes in developing legal strategies aimed at early dismissals and summary adjudication of contentious disputes through tactical strategy and dispositive motions. Ms. Waghalter is licensed to practice law in California, Oregon, and Washington.

Prior to practicing defense litigation, Ms. Waghalter assisted in protecting and upholding the constitutional rights of clients with mental illnesses within the criminal justice system. In this capacity, Ms. Waghalter represented over 3,000 indigents in hearings and trials before the California Board of Parole Hearings. Currently, Ms. Waghalter utilizes her broad range of experience in having represented the significantly financially disadvantaged, local businesses, and international corporations to resolve matters with the ultimate goal of achieving justice for all- including justice for corporate clients in a litigious climate disfavoring deep pockets.

Ms. Waghalter earned her J.D. from University of San Diego School of Law, where she was awarded the Civil Clinic Intern Award upon graduation, for her contribution to the school’s pro bono USD Legal Clinic in her second and third years of law school. She received her B.A. from U.C. Irvine in Political Science. During her senior year at UCI, Ms. Waghalter attended the competitive international exchange program at Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po Paris.)

In her leisure time, Ms. Waghalter enjoys spending time with her husband and their two sweet greyhounds, watching either MSNBC or reality TV, depending on who has the remote.

Recent Posts

Contract-defying Policy of Equitable Grace Period Requires Permanent Improvement to Property

Normally, contracts are strictly construed, and courts are generally reluctant to veer away from the written terms. However, as with every rule, there is an exception, and with regard to long term lease agreements, there is the quiet but powerful Equitable Grace Period: quiet in that potential beneficiaries are not often aware of its existence, and powerful in that it defies the general policy of strict adherence to contract terms.

Supreme Court Rules Expert Certification Not Required in Sex Assault Case Regarding Massage Therapist

In the recent Supreme Court case Lataisha M. Jackson v. Charles Anthony Burrell, et al. (“Jackson”), the Court reinforced the Common Knowledge Exception to mandatory Expert Certification pursuant to Tenn. Code § 29-26-122(a). (W2018-00057-SC-R11-CV; filed June 12, 2020.) This significant development ends a six-year legal battle, effectively removing a plaintiff’s additional burden to provide expert support when filing a complaint involving sexual assault against health care providers where there are allegations of prior misconduct.

Women Interrupted: Female Supreme Court Justices Interrupted More Than Male Supreme Court Justices

Recent studies show that female Supreme Court Justices are significantly interrupted more than their male counterparts. Indeed, even in the time of a global pandemic, women’s issues remain at the forefront, as evidenced in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent telephonic hearings.

Watch Out Employers! Employees’ Settlement of Individual Claims Does Not Extinguish PAGA Standing to Sue as State Representative for Labor Code Violations

In a recent holding by the California Supreme Court in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., (March 12, 2020, CA Supreme Court Case No. S246911) the state’s public policy of supporting employee rights was reaffirmed: an employee does not lose standing to bring an action under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of the State, for particular Labor Code violations, simply because the employee settled and dismissed his own…

Watch Out Employers! California Expands Tort Liability for Negative Statements About Terminated Employees

A recent decision by the Fourth District, Division One of the California Court of Appeal in Tilkey vs. Allstate Insurance Company (Tilkey v. Allstate Ins. Co., D074459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) established a new cause of action, “Compelled Self-Publication Defamation.” In simple terms, this theory of liability allows for lawsuits by individuals harmed by having to explain details of a termination, where the details of the termination are defamatory against…

The Unconscious Bias Against Women

We all know society generally favors men in government, politics, the legal field, trying to get a fair deal on car repairs, and generally anything else other than skipping the line at a nightclub on a Saturday night or becoming an Instagram celebrity. If you cannot accept this premise, please stop reading now.

Out-of-possession Owners With HUD Contracts Not Out-of-luck

The Court of Appeal recently granted a win to property owner lessors with Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) contracts. Specifically, the Court decided that premises liability would not be expanded to out-of-possession lessors simply based on covenants in their contracts with HUD.

Mcdonalds is Lovin It in Court These Days

In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeal reaffirms its finding that a franchisor is not a “joint employer” under the California Labor Code. As such, McDonald’s corporation recently avoided the extension of employer liability for the acts of its franchisee.

Time’s Up for So Cal Stip

The end is near in the life of the Southern California Stipulation, aka “So Cal Stip.”  Sometime in August 2019, and unbeknownst to many unsuspecting deposing attorneys, Southern California court reporters united and collectively decided to take a stand against the (infamous) So Cal Stip. All of a sudden, attorneys throughout So Cal were (mostly politely) told by court reporters that they would not comply with the So Cal Stip, and an…

Security Guards Not Always Required

The California Court of Appeal has made a recent ruling in a premises liability case that amounts to a victory for landowners: the Court ruled generalized knowledge of potential future crime does not meet the “heightened foreseeability” requirement for premises liability.  In layman’s terms, just because a parking lot owner has some general idea that a random crime has the possibility of occurring at some random point in the future, does…

Copyright © 2021 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.