Terra Davenport is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. She specializes in general liability defense and personal injury. Ms. Davenport has experience representing insurance and public entity defendants in a variety of different legal matters, including class action tax litigation, tort litigation, personal injury, wrongful death, construction and premises liability, directors and officers, errors and omissions, quiet title and boundary disputes, and civil rights and police liability.
One of Ms. Davenport’s most significant wins was a highly publicized suit involving a police officer who was convicted of bribery and assault involving multiple victims. Ms. Davenport represented the City of San Diego, the San Diego Police Department, and nine other individual officers. She assisted in preparing the witnesses and case for trial, in which was anticipated to be a three-month trial in Federal Court involving hundreds of witnesses. Ms. Davenport obtained a favorable settlement for her clients before the commencement of trial.
Ms. Davenport graduated from California Western School of Law in 2012. While attending law school, she was a member of the Negotiation Team where she represented California Western in intra-school negotiation competitions. In 2011, she was a recipient of a Distinguished Advocate Award. Ms. Davenport received her Bachelor of Business Administration, with a focus in Marketing and Human Resources, from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. As a varsity softball player, she helped lead her team to a national championship and also competed internationally in Olympic qualifying events with the Great Britain National Softball Team. Prior to attending law school, Ms. Davenport worked for the Vancouver Whitecaps FC of Major League Soccer.
Why does Tyson & Mendes emphasize the importance of aggressively arguing damages as part of its defense strategy? The answer is illustrated in Arias v. Porter, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1373 (Fla. 2nd DCA May 29, 2019). In Arias v. Porter, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1373 (Fla. 2nd DCA May 29, 2019), a Florida appeals court concluded a jury verdict awarding an automobile accident victim…
Eighth Amendment—Corporations—Excessive Fines—Workers’ Compensation Noncompliance
Colo. Dep’t of Labor & Emp’t, Div. of Workers’ Comp. v. Dami Hosp., LLC (June 3, 2019)
Dami Hospitality, LLC (“Dami”) is the owner-operator of a Denver motel. Dami employs between four and ten people at any given time. As an employer of three or more persons, Dami is required by statute to maintain…
Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution – Anti-diversion provision of the Arizona Constitution
Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue, No. CV-18-0080-PR (February 2019)
Medical Devices – Failure to Warn – Express Preemption Provision
Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc., No. CV-17-0322-PR (December 2018)
Public Nuisance – Public Land with Religious, Cultural or Emotional Significance
Hopi Tribe v. Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership, No. CV2011-00701 (November 2018)
Insurance—Bad Faith—Independent Medical Exams
No. 18SA135, Schultz v. GEICO Casualty Company, § 10-3-1115, C.R.S. (2018)
Plaintiff-petitioner Charissa Schultz was injured in a 2015 car accident when the other vehicle driver failed to stop at a stop sign. The other vehicle driver’s insurance company settled for its $25,000 policy limit, and Schultz made a demand on her own uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under her GEICO policy, which also had a $25,000 limit.
In California, an insurance bad faith claim is a claim that an insured has against his or her insurance company resulting from the insurance company’s bad acts. These claims usually arise from actions an insurance company takes, or fails to take, after incidents like a motor vehicle accident or property damage. Insurance bad faith is a complicated area of law.
The questions of whether and when a plaintiff/patient-litigant puts her mental, psychological, psychiatric, or emotional state at issue have been extensively addressed by the California Supreme Court. In 1970, the Court addressed the patient-litigant exception of section 1016 of Evidence Code, holding the patient-litigant exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not unconstitutionally infringe on the constitutional rights of patients, but that the scope of the discovery permitted “depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.” (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 420-423 and 435.) The Court further noted:
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), a plaintiff must prove not only that the defendant excluded him from participating in, or denied him the benefits of, its services, but also that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was because of his disability. (See Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 114 F. 3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997); Tunstall v. Knowles, 2015 WL 1013445 (E.D.Cal. 2015) [citing Weinreich for the proposition that “plaintiff proceeding under Title II of the ADA must prove that the exclusion from participation in the program was solely by reason of his disability.”]; Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 695 (9th Cir. 2014) [To prevail under Title II, a plaintiff must show that the exclusion, denial, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.].)
With the increasing use of the internet and postings to Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, and other electronic sources, do reposters and republishers who forward and share links to internet content need to be worried about potential liability for defamation? The short answer is no as long as no material changes or defamatory modifications were made to the original content.
California’s Health Studio Services Act applies to all contracts for services between a consumer and gym. (Civil Code §1812.82 et seq.) “Any contract for health studio services which does not comply with the applicable provisions of this title shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.” (Civil Code §1812.91.)