Lil Durk's Legal Woes: Family of Saviay'a Robinson Files Second Wrongful Death Suit

In a new twist to his legal challenges, Lil Durk faces his second wrongful death lawsuit as the family of Saviay'a Robinson files fresh claims in Cook County Circuit Court.

Case Details: Family of Saviay'a Robinson v. Durk Banks (aka Lil Durk), Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, Case No.: 3138246

Tragic Event Allegedly Directly Linked to Actions of Lil Durk:

In a tragic string of events, Saviay'a Robinson (a.k.a. Lil PAB) was shot and killed during an alleged attempt on her cousin Quando's life in August 2022 in Los Angeles. Durk (aka Lil Durk) is accused of masterminding the crime. Alleging that Saviay'a's untimely death is directly linked to Lil Durk's negligence and actions, her family filed a wrongful death complaint. There is currently limited public information regarding Durk's response to the allegations made by Robinson's family, as there hasn't been a formal announcement from his legal team regarding the second wrongful death lawsuit in connection with the fatal LA incident in 2022.

Interpreting Negligence & Liability Standards in Wrongful Death Claims:

The Family of Saviay'a Robinson v. Durk Banks case could set an important legal precedent in wrongful death litigation, particularly in cases involving celebrities or high-profile figures. A ruling in the family's favor could influence future interpretations of negligence and liability standards in wrongful death claims and help reinforce stricter accountability measures for celebrities and public figures in similar cases.

Could We See Greater Accountability in the Entertainment Industry?

This wrongful death suit has already sparked discussion regarding the consequences when celebrity behavior compromises public safety. As the case continues, it could lead to a much-needed closer look at accountability in the entertainment industry.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Medtronic MiniMed Prevails: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Dismissed

When they found themselves facing wrongful death allegations (again), Medtronic MiniMed turned to a defense they were already familiar with: a preemption defense. Their efforts met with success when they secured a dismissal at the summary judgment stage.

Case Details: Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.: 20STCV33401

Did Medtronic MiniMed Downplay the Risks and Exaggerate the Benefits?

According to the plaintiff, Rieger, Medtronic violated manufacturing and safety standards; the complaint argued that Medtronic downplayed the risks of the insulin pump while exaggerating the benefits. Rieger's wrongful death lawsuit alleged that a defective Medtronic insulin pump caused significant injuries.

Preemption Defense: Medtronic MiniMed's Tried and True Method of Case Dismissal

Medtronic MiniMed, a global medical technology company that develops and manufactures healthcare technologies and therapies, acquired MiniMed in 2001. MiniMed insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are often used for diabetes treatment. Medtronic MiniMed approached the wrongful death lawsuit with a preemption defense, arguing that state law claims should be dismissed because the state claims are preempted by federal law under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

The Case: Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.

Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. After extensive litigation and briefing, the court concluded that the insulin pump used by the plaintiff was U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved and subject to the rigorous premarket approval process. This meant the plaintiff's California state law claims were preempted (under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic (128 S. Ct. 999)).

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The Reversal in a Far-Reaching Toxic Exposure Case

In a far-reaching toxic exposure case, the District Court's dismissal was reversed on appeal when the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled in favor of the injured plaintiffs.

The Case: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al.

The Court: Nevada Supreme Court

The Case No.: 85569

The Plaintiff: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The plaintiffs, Melinda Adkins et al., worked at Clark County Government Center (CCGC), where they were allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals. The exposure eventually led to personal injury and wrongful death claims after numerous Clark County employees contracted terminal cancer, and the exposure led to multiple employee deaths. According to the complaint, toxic chemicals were released on a Union Pacific property. After the CCGC opened on the same property in 1995, their on-site workers started to get sick. Workers also noticed black soot accumulating in air vents and workstations. However, Clark County reassured their workers - insisting the site was safe. In 2020, experts established the connection between the CCGC workers' illnesses and the toxic exposure linked back to when Union Pacific Railroad Company owned the property. Plaintiffs argue that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and toxic exposure until 2020 when experts established the connection. Wrongful death claims continued to arbitration.

In District Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

In Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiffs' first amended complaint was dismissed after the court concluded that the claims were time-barred since the statute didn't specify discovery-rule tolling. (The court ruled that the discovery rule didn't apply to the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

In Appellate Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision after a review. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule (NRS 11.190(4)(e) could apply despite the specific language referencing discovery-rule tolling emphasizing that fairness and justice require a claim not accrue until the claimant is aware or "should be" aware of the possibility of a claim based on reasonable diligence. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs raised issues of fact about their awareness of the cause of action and the concealment of relevant information (on the part of the defendant). The Supreme Court also found the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Supreme Court of Nevada's Reversal: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company

The Nevada Supreme Court's reversal of the district court's dismissal in Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. made it possible for the plaintiffs to proceed with their personal injury and wrongful death based on toxic exposure claims. Based on the Supreme Court's findings, the case could proceed to discovery and trial. The findings on appeal emphasized the applicability of the discovery rule and equitable tolling. The decision allowing the plaintiffs' claims to move forward despite the initial statute of limitations dismissal was a notable victory for the plaintiffs that reinforced the protections the law offers for individuals harmed by corporate negligence.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuits: Is Submission of Medical Records an Abuse of Discretion?

Following a rear-ending car incident in 2017, Samantha Braun claimed various injuries including traumatic brain injury, while the other party admitted fault.

The Case: Braun v. Wollman

The Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

The Case No.: 30440-a-PJD

The Plaintiff: Braun v. Wollman

The plaintiff, Samantha Braun, filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit and the case proceeded to a jury trial to determine damages. Claming various injuries in addition to trauamatic brain injury, Braun sought significant damages.

The Defendant: Braun v. Wollman

The defendant, Wollman, admitted fault for the vehicular accident.

The Trial: Braun v. Wollman

During the trial, Braun objected to the submission of several of her medical records citing business records hearsay exception. The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit overruled most of Braun’s objections and admitted the records. After the jury awarded her $125,000 (a significantly lower amount than she originally requested in damages), Braun appealed, claiming that the admission of her medical records was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced her right to a fair trial.

On Appeal: Braun v. Wollman

Braun appealed the $125,000 in damages awarded by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Jury, claiming the admission of her medical records was prejudicial and erroneous. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the circuit court erred in admitting the medical records under the business records exception since there did not appear to be sufficient foundation. They also determined that Braun’s statements in the records were admissible as non-hearsay, and some statements were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception. However, the Supreme Court concluded that Braun, the plaintiff, did not demonstrate substantial prejudice affecting the jury verdict and affirmed the circuit court’s decision upholding the $125,000 award of damages.

If you have questions about filing a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Santa Barbara County Sheriff After an In-Custody Fatality

The family of a deceased California man filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Santa Barbara County Sheriff, alleging negligence and misconduct leading to a tragic in-custody death.

The Case: San Juana Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al. v. County of Santa Barbara et al.

The Court: Los Angeles Federal Court

The Case No.: 2:24-cv-04685

The Plaintiff: San Juana Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al. v. County of Santa Barbara et al.

The Decedent's family filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Los Angeles against the Santa Barbara County Sheriff (and others) after the in-custody death of their son, Luis Duron. The wrongful death lawsuit was filed on June 5, 2024.

The Incident: San Juana Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al. v. County of Santa Barbara et al.

According to court documents, the Decedent, Luis Enrique Duron-Rodriguez, was pursued for excessive speed by Santa Barbara Sheriff Deputies on August 31, 2023, around 6:16 am on Hollister Avenue. Duron-Rodriguez drove his Infinity vehicle until it collided with a parked vehicle before he struck a tree. The collision resulted in notable front-end damage, resulting in deployed airbags. Santa Barbara's fire department responded to the scene. Duron-Rodriguez was transported from the scene of the collision to Goleta Cottage Hospital, where he was evaluated before medical staff released him for booking.

Court Records Indicate A Problem became apparent soon after booking

According to documentation of the incident, Duron-Rodriguez was booked for:

1) suspicion of driving under the influence, resulting in injury

2) reckless driving, and

3) hit and run with injuries.

The court records also indicate that the Decedent was not immediately placed on alcohol withdrawal syndrome protocol. The following day, Duron-Rodriguez appeared confused and disoriented. On September 2, 2023, Duron-Rodriguez was found unresponsive in his Santa Barbara County jail cell. Medical staff began life-saving measures, including CPR and placement of an AED, and transported Duron-Rodriguez back to Cottage Hospital. However, he died at the hospital.

Plaintiffs Claim Negligence in Santa Barbara In-Custody Death

In this case, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff (along with other implicated parties) faces accusations of negligence surrounding the in-custody death of Duron-Rodriguez. The family of Duron-Rodriguez specifically claims that medical personnel at the Santa Barbara County Jail did not administer essential care for his injuries resulting from a collision and for symptoms related to substance withdrawal syndrome.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Substantial Wrongful Death Settlement Reached After Tragic Mercer County Collision

In a poignant resolution to a devastating tragedy, families of two brothers-in-law who perished in a fiery collision in Mercer County have secured a nearly $2 million settlement, highlighting the legal avenues for wrongful death redress in fatal accidents.

The Case: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton et al.

The Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County

The Case No.: MER-L-1631-19

The Incident: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton et al.

The wrongful death case, Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton et al., started in the early afternoon of March 26, 2018. That afternoon, Arthur “Artie” Reed and Mark Leary, brothers-in-law, drove on Route 29 in Mercer County, New Jersey. The two were going to pick up Mark’s adopted son David from school, but they never made it. That day, just before 1 pm, a 2007 Mack dump truck headed northbound on the same road collided with the two men’s vehicle. The head-on collision resulted in Artie’s car being pinned under the dump truck, at which point the two vehicles burst into flames. Artie and Mark were trapped inside. Mark was incinerated, and flames engulfed critically injured and unconscious Artie.

Settling the case: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton et al.

The families the men left behind filed a wrongful death lawsuit, which was finally settled after six years. DAT LLC (the dump truck owner involved in the collision) and the State of New Jersey were jointly responsible for paying the nearly $2 million settlement to resolve the suit.

The Plaintiffs Claim Two Parties’ Negligence Led to the Incident:

The collision was a horrific tragedy that the plaintiffs claim was due to the negligence of two other parties that day: the driver of the dump truck (along with the entity that owned the truck) and the State of New Jersey’s negligent design of that particular stretch of Route 29 (including the shoulder, clear zone, and steep drop off from the road to the grass against the roadway that feel below appropriate standards. The grieving families made it clear throughout the wrongful death lawsuit that they believed if the dump truck driver had kept his truck in its lane or if New Jersey had complied with state and federal design standards for that stretch of Route 29, both Mark and Artie would still be alive.

Mercer County Fiery Collision: The Nearly $2 Million Settlement

The nearly $2 million settlement consisted of two payments. The 1st payment was a policy limit offer from the DATLLC insurance company; the company was forced to close its business following the incident. The 2nd $950,000 payment came from the State of New Jersey. The settlement came after long, aggressive litigation.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lawsuit Claims Universal Orlando Roller Coaster Caused Traumatic Brain Injury

In recent news, a woman filed a lawsuit against Universal Orlando, claiming that one of their roller coasters caused a traumatic brain injury that caused serious ramifications in her life.

The Case: Geriann Erwin Clem and Richard Clem vs. Universal City Development

The Court: Orange County Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit in Florida

The Case No.: 192961708

The Plaintiff: Clems vs. Universal City Development

The plaintiffs, Geriann Erwin Clem and Richard Clem (husband), sued Universal City Development (Universal Orlando), claiming that riding one of the amusement park's roller coasters caused Geriann Erwin Clem to suffer a traumatic brain injury. According to the complaint, Geriann claims she rode Universal Orlando's Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster on Feb. 11, 2023. Available material describes the ride as reaching speeds of 65 mph and including a climb at a 90-degree angle followed by a drastic drop. According to the plaintiff, while on the ride, her head "shook violently" and "slammed into the seat's headrest" throughout the ride.

The Defendant: Clems vs. Universal City Development

The defendant, Universal City Development (Universal Orlando), is a popular amusement park in Orlando, Florida. According to the plaintiffs in the traumatic brain injury case, the park failed to provide proper restraints for their Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster and did not provide enough warning before allowing customers on the ride that their heads would be shaken and slammed against the headrest repeatedly. According to the two plaintiffs, the warning signs posted on-site at the park were inadequate.

The Case: Clems vs. Universal City Development

The plaintiffs filed the case in Orange County, and the married couple sought "personal injuries and damages" over $50,000.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Los Angeles, empowering you to take action.