Reece Román is a Partner in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office and is a member of the firm’s Complex Trial Team. His practice focuses primarily on catastrophic personal injury matters, with particular emphasis on cases involving traumatic brain injuries, spinal cords injuries, and major orthopedic injuries. Mr. Román represents individuals, public entities, and businesses in California state and federal district courts.
Mr. Román has litigated hundreds of personal injury, property damage, employment, construction defect, class action, and business disputes. He has prevailed on numerous demurrers and motions for summary judgement winning pre-trial dismissals in actions for wrongful death, personal injury, sexual abuse, nuisance, trespass, and inverse condemnation. He has been instrumental in the preparation and trial of dozens of matters, including many tried through verdict.
Mr. Román earned his B.S., magna cum laude, from Caly Poly – San Luis Obispo, and his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law, where he was an Editor of the Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce and an Executive Editor of the Syracuse Science and Technology Law Reporter. Mr. Román is licensed to practice in all California courts, and is admitted to the Southern and Central Districts of the United States District Court, State of California. He is a member of the San Diego Defense Lawyers.
Outside the courtroom, Mr. Román enjoys golf, BBQ, good tequila, and spending time with his wife and daughter.
Following the California Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, there has been some uncertainty regarding classification of employees versus independent contractors in cases not involving California Wage Orders, which impose obligations relating to basic working conditions such as meal and rest breaks. In the recent case Bennett v. Rancho California Water Dist., the Fourth…
It’s that time of year again. Time to put away the holiday decorations, watch college football bowl games, and make those New Year’s resolutions.
Defamation – A Prevailing Party on a Motion to Quash May be Awarded Fees and Costs Under C.C.P. § 1987.2 Even if the Subpoena is Withdrawn Prior to Judicial Ruling on the Motion
John/Jane Roe v. Wolfgang Halbig (November 20, 2018) 2018 WL 6061791
Wolfgang Halbig sued five “Doe” defendants for defamatory statements made on various blogs and social media sites. Halbig subpoenaed Google for production of documents and information revealing the identity of the posters. Google notified the account holder, who promptly moved to quash the subpoena under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. The account holder also requested fees and costs under section 1987.2(c), which allows a trial court to award reasonable expenses to one who “prevails” on a motion to quash a subpoena for personally identifying information pursuant to section 1987.1. Halbig then withdrew the subpoena, but the account holder insisted on proceeding with the motion and recovering costs.
Wrongful Death – A Non-Biological Child May Have Standing Under CCP § 377.60(a)
A.G. v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (October 18, 2018) 2018 WL 5078749
The decedent Brian Pickett was killed during an altercation with Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputies. Pickett’s partner, Tamai Gilbert, brought suit as guardian ad litem for their two biological children, Brian Pickett, Jr. and Micah Picket. Tamara Ford also brought suit as guardian ad litem for Gilbert’s other child A.G, who was not the decedent’s biological child.
When multiple employees sue an employer in a single lawsuit based on a common pattern of discrimination, employers have historically relied on misjoinder of parties as a defense on demurrer. The recent decision by the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, in Rosa Jensen v. The Home Depot, Inc., et al., 2018 WL 2441175, may force employers to change their defense tactics, at least at the early pleading stage.
June 2016 California Case Law Update
You have just settled a personal injury action involving two plaintiffs, a mother and her minor child. The mother executes the settlement agreement, and plaintiffs’ counsel agrees to seek a court order approving settlement of the minor’s claim. However, counsel demands you immediately issue a check for the mother’s claim. It is a common request, particularly in cases where the minor’s injuries are relatively insignificant in comparison to the parents. Indeed, insurers frequently issue checks before the order approving the minor’s settlement is entered. But should you do it?
The California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §§ 6250 – 6277) provides a useful mechanism for obtaining records from public entities.
Many people are surprised to learn that generally “[p]ublic records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record.” (Gov. Code § 6253(a).) The public agency generally must permit copying of the records upon request. (Gov. Code § 6253(b).)
How does one combat a motion that is technically authorized, but is in fact a bad faith litigation tactic designed to delay proceedings, harass an opponent, or run up the
C.C.P. § 1030 Requires Courts to Order Out-of-State Plaintiffs to File an Undertaking to Secure Defense Costs and Attorney’s Fees Where there is a “Reasonable Possibility” the Defendant will Prevail