Heartbreaking Tragedy at Hyatt Ziv Results in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In a devastating incident that underscores critical issues in resort safety, a young toddler tragically lost his life after falling from a ninth-floor window at the Hyatt Ziva hotel in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. This case has led to a wrongful death lawsuit, spotlighting the dire consequences of safety oversights in the hospitality industry.

The Case: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

The Court: San Diego Federal Court

The Case No.: 23CV1838 BAS AHG

The Plaintiff: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

The lawsuit is filed by the grief-stricken parents, James Carter and Anastasia Duboshina, who suffered the unbearable loss of their 23-month-old son, Nico Carter. The tragedy occurred when Nico fell through an unprotected window that was missing its pane, a safety hazard that went unnoticed until it was too late. The heartbroken parents are now seeking justice for Nico, aiming to ensure that such a preventable tragedy never recurs in any hotel or resort setting.

The Defendants: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, the defendant in this case, is accused of negligence in failing to maintain safe premises at their Hyatt Ziva location in Puerto Vallarta. The lawsuit alleges that the hotel did not adhere to necessary safety protocols, including ensuring that all windows, particularly those on higher floors, were secure and protected to prevent such accidents.

Case History: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

The incident, which took place on October 11, 2021, led to the lawsuit filed in San Diego Federal Court. It claims that Hyatt Hotels Corporation misrepresented the safety of their facilities, directly leading to Nico’s fatal accident. This case raises significant questions about enforcing safety standards and the accountability of large hospitality entities.

The Case: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

This tragic case is a crucial reminder of the importance of stringent safety measures in the hospitality industry. For California workers and residents, it underscores the potential dangers in public accommodations and the need for vigilant enforcement of California employment law and safety regulations. The lawsuit seeks justice for Nico and aims to serve as a deterrent against the negligence that too often underpins such heartbreaking losses. This case is a call to action for all hotel operators to prioritize guest safety to prevent future tragedies.

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

Parents of the 12 Year Old Killed While Paddleboarding File a Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Almost a year after the death of their 12-year-old daughter during an incident in Mission Bay's De Anza Cove, Ashley and Mark Peterson filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Ashley and Mark Peterson v. City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California, OfferUp, Theresa Miranda De Vara, Leal Serafin, Isaac Shaker, Arsanyous R. Ghaly, Peter Youssef, Does 1-100 inclusive

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego - Central Division

The Case No.:

The Plaintiffs: Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Their 12-Year-Old's Death

The plaintiffs in the case are Ashley and Mark Peterson, the parents of a 12-year-old who was killed while paddle boarding in Mission Bay's De Anza Cove in July 2023. 12-year-old Savannah was hit by 19-year-old Arsanyous Ghaly, who was riding a Jet Ski.

Multiple Defendants Listed in the Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

The defendants in the case include the man driving the Jet Ski that ran over the child, Ghaly, who was accused of Savannah's death in a criminal case and faces a charge of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Ghaly, a resident of Bellflower in Los Angeles County, was arrested in November 2023. Ghaly is accused of going 10x the speed limit (approx. 50 mph in a 5 mph zone) when he hit the child paddleboarding. Ghaly plead not guilty and denied all charges during his informational arraignment. In addition to Ghaly, Savannah's parents named nine other defendants:

• two other Jet Ski riders

• two owners of the Jet Ski

• the city, the county, the state, and the San Diego Unified Port District

• OfferUp (the app allegedly used to rent the Jet Skis)

According to the California Wrongful Death lawsuit, just eight minutes before the deadly incident, the group of three Jet Ski riders were pulled over by a San Diego lifeguard for excessive speed and reckless operation. The suit also indicates that Ghaly and the two other riders were not provided proper training on safe Jet Ski operation and did not have California Boater's Cards.

The Case: Petersons v. City of San Diego, et al

In the complaint for wrongful death and survival, the plaintiffs make several claims:

• Dangerous condition of public property

• Violations of the California Harbors and Navigation Code

• Negligence per se

• Gross Negligence

• Negligence

• Loss of Companionship

The plaintiffs seek a jury trial.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Discuss your situation today with one of the experienced wrongful death attorneys in our various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Death of their Son in Santa Barbara

Days after being booked into Santa Barbara County Jail, a 37-year-old Goleta man dies after being found unresponsive in his cell. The parents of the deceased, Luis Duron, filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming the jail's medical staff failed to treat Duron for obvious injuries.

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 plaintiffs in the case are Luis Duron's parents. The two filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal Court alleging the wrongful death of their son. According to the wrongful death complaint, on August 31, 2023, at approximately 6:16 am, the decedent, Luis Enrique Duron-Rodriguez, was being pursued by Santa Barbara County Sheriff Deputies for excessive speed on Hollister Avenue. Duron was driving when he collided with a parked car and then hit a tree at the corner of Hollister Avenue and Viajero. Luis Duron's Infinity sustained significant front-end damage, causing the airbags to deploy, and the Santa Barbara Fire Department responded to the scene. According to the complaint, Duron was taken to the hospital and evaluated before he was released and booked for two felonies and one misdemeanor (suspicion of driving under the influence with injuries, hit and run with injuries, and reckless driving). The records indicate that Duron was not immediately put on alcohol withdrawal syndrome protocol and that the following day, he seemed disoriented and confused. On September 2, 2023, Duron was discovered in his Santa Barbara County Jail cell unresponsive. Medical staff started CPR, placed an AED, and transported Duron to the hospital, where he later died.

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

The defendants in the case are the Santa Barbara County Sheriff and others allegedly involved in the in-custody death of Duron. Duron's family alleges that the Santa Barbara County Jail medical staff failed to provide Duron with the necessary treatment for his injuries after the collision and substance withdrawal syndrome.

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

Luis Duron's parents filed the lawsuit in Santa Barbara Federal Court on June 5, 2024, According to the plaintiffs, Duron displayed obvious signs of untreated severe alcohol withdrawal (severe anxiety, disorientation to time and place, hallucinations, and incoherent mumbling). When Duron was initially booked, he had excessive bruising on his chest - evidence of the trauma he sustained during the collision on 8/31/23. The wrongful death lawsuit alleges that failing to provide treatment after the obvious signs and symptoms resulted in Duron's death.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Woman Claims She Sustained Traumatic Brain Injury from Universal Studios Roller Coaster

In recent news, a couple, Geriann and Richard Clem filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit against Universal Studios Development Partners, alleging a failure in their duty to safely maintain and operate one of their popular roller coaster rides.

The Case: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The Court: Circuit Court of Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County

The Case No.: 192961708

The Plaintiff: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The plaintiffs in the case, the Clems, filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit after an incident that occurred at the Universal Studios Orlando theme park on February 11, 2023. During their time at the park, the plaintiff, Geriann, rode the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster, which travels at a top speed of 65mph and reaches a height of 167 feet. The roller coaster does not provide head restraints for riders. Geriann claims that her head shook violently and was repeatedly slammed against the headrest throughout the ride.

The Defendant: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The defendant in the case, Universal Studios Development Partners, is the owner/operator of Universal Studios Orlando theme park located at 1000 Universal Studios Plaza, Orlando, Florida, 32819. The plaintiffs allege that Universal Studios negligently operated, maintained, and controlled the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster and breached their duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to provide appropriate head restraints, failing to maintain the roller coaster in safe conditions, failing to correct unreasonably unsafe conditions, failing to provide adequate warning of danger, posting inadequate signs of potential harm outside the ride, and failing to provide proper safety precautions.

The Case: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The plaintiff in the case, Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners, claims she suffered severe and permanent personal injuries and damages including a traumatic brain injury, pain, and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the past, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the future; medical, nursing, and rehabilitation expenses in the past, medical nursing, and rehabilitation expenses in the future, lost wages in the past, and the capacity to earn money in the future. Geriann's husband, Richard Clem, also seeks damages for the loss of his wife's support, care, and consortium.

If you have questions about filing a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Appeals Court Rules that Parents are Bound by Son’s Arbitration Agreement in Wrongful Death Claim

In recent news, a Los Angeles skilled nursing facility run by Silverscreen Healthcare was sued for wrongful death by the parents of a resident who died while in their care.

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

The Case No.: B323237

The Plaintiff: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Holland, originally filed for survivor claims and a wrongful death claim in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging dependent adult abuse and negligence on behalf of their deceased son, Skyler. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia skilled nursing facility) moved to compel arbitration of the entire complaint, arguing there was an arbitration agreement between Skyler and Asistencia. The trial court granted Asistencia's motion for the survivor claims. However, they denied the motion for the wrongful death cause of action, stating that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia (relying heavily on Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal. App.5th 835 (Avila)).

The Defendants: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant, Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia), filed for appeal. arguing Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz) sets a precedent and that the parents are bound by the arbitration agreement signed by their son, so the parents' wrongful death claim is also subject to arbitration. The appeals court agreed with Asistencia and found that under Ruiz and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1295, the parents' wrongful death claim must go to arbitration along with Skyler's survivor claims.

Do Medical Arbitration Agreements Apply to Wrongful Death Claims?

Ruiz addressed the following issue: "[W]hen a person seeking medical care contracts with a health care provider to resolve all medical malpractice claims through arbitration, does that agreement apply to the resolution of wrongful death claims when the claimants are not themselves signatory to the arbitration agreement?" (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841.) In seeking an answer, Ruiz focused on the legal intent behind Section 1295 (part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). MICRA's goal of reducing costs in the resolution of malpractice claims encourages arbitration of medical malpractice disputes, stating, "...all medical malpractice claims, including wrongful death claims, may be subject to arbitration agreements between a health care provider and the patient." (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841; see also id. at p. 843).

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

After Skyler's death on October 29, 2020, his parents filed a lawsuit alleging four causes of action against Asistencia: dependent adult abuse, negligence, violation of resident's rights, and wrongful death. The first three causes of action are survivor claims (Skyler's claims) brought by his mother, Holland. Holland filed survivor claims in her capacity as Skyler's successor in interest. Holland and Wayne bring the fourth cause of action for wrongful death as individuals. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. filed an appeal after the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (No. 22STCV01945) found that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia. On appeal, Michelle Williams Court, Judge, reversed the decision and remanded with directions.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Lax Security Protocols Result in the Death of Concert Attendees?

In recent news, two nurses attending an EDM festival were allegedly killed by another concert attendee, even though security measures in place should have prohibited him from having a weapon on site.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The Court: U.S. District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 20-cv-01613-HSG

The Plaintiff: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The plaintiff in the case, Bautista-Perez, initiated a lawsuit in March 2020 against the Defendants Juul and Coalition, alleging that these entities were their legal employers and they failed to adhere to various state and federal labor laws. The plaintiffs argued that Juul employees had control over their wages, hours, and working conditions and that they were supervised partly by Coalition employees, establishing an employer-employee relationship. They claimed that the defendants did not provide compliant pay statements, failed to pay for all hours worked, and did not issue immediate payment upon discharge. Their legal action included claims under the California Labor Code and FLSA. Later, they expanded their claims to include penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Despite the court initially denying the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismissing Juul's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, the plaintiffs persisted by filing a Second Amended Complaint to continue pressing their allegations and seeking redress for the claimed labor law violations.

The Defendant: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The defendant in the case, Juul Labs, is a foreign stock corporation known for manufacturing electronic cigarettes, found itself entangled in legal proceedings stemming from its involvement in the Yes on C Campaign during San Francisco's November 5, 2019, municipal election. The campaign aimed to pass Proposition C, which sought to overturn a local ordinance that suspended the sale of e-cigarettes. To manage this campaign, Juul contracted Long Ying International, Inc., a San Francisco-based campaign operator led by CEO David Ho. Long Ying and Ho then employed approximately 365 workers, including the named plaintiffs, to carry out canvassing, phone banking, and administrative tasks. These workers, classified as independent contractors, were required to sign a standard independent contractor agreement. The lawsuit brought against Juul and its associates centers on allegations that Juul, by exerting control over the campaign workers' wages, hours, and working conditions, effectively acted as their employer, thereby violating multiple state and federal labor laws, including failures in providing compliant pay statements and ensuring payment for all hours worked.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

In the lawsuit involving Juul Labs, Inc., centered on its management of the Yes on C Campaign and the subsequent employment practices, plaintiffs accused Juul and Coalition of misclassifying campaign workers as independent contractors, among other violations of state and federal labor laws. The legal proceedings saw the plaintiffs moving to conditionally certify the class while Juul and Coalition sought dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court, however, denied the dismissal motions and granted conditional class certification. In an effort to resolve the matter, the court stayed the proceedings in June 2021 to facilitate mediation, which led to a settlement in August 2021. The settlement agreement, preliminarily approved in February 2022, was finalized with the court granting final approval to a $1.75 million settlement. This amount included $400,000 in penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), $525,000 for attorneys' fees, $14,568.49 for litigation costs, and service awards totaling $17,000 for the three named plaintiffs. The resolution marked the conclusion of the dispute, with the court directing the parties to implement the settlement terms and file a stipulated final judgment.

California Nurses Face Significant Risks of Misclassification:

The resolution of the lawsuit involving Juul Labs and its campaign workers underscores a broader legal issue prevalent in California—misclassification of workers. This challenge extends significantly to the healthcare sector, particularly nurses. The case of Juul, where workers were misclassified as independent contractors despite performing roles akin to regular employees, mirrors the risks that nurses face across the state. Nurses, often hired as independent contractors by healthcare facilities, find themselves in precarious positions without the full benefits and protections afforded to regular employees, such as overtime pay, health benefits, and workers' compensation. This legal precedent highlights the ongoing issues of labor misclassification and serves as a crucial reminder for healthcare institutions to evaluate their employment practices carefully. Correctly classifying workers is essential for legal compliance and protecting the rights and well-being of nurses, who are vital to the functioning of California's healthcare system.

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

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Orange County Apartment Explosion

In recent news, Mikeanesha Moore was injured during an Orange County apartment explosion on March 1, 2024, and later died on March 9, 2024. Her family filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The Court: 9th Judicial Circuit Court Orange County, Florida

The Case No.: 48-2024-CA-002046

The Plaintiff: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The plaintiff in the case, the family of Mikeanesha Moore, filed a wrongful death lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Moor died about a week after her Orange County apartment exploded. The family is suing the apartment property’s owner and manager, as well as the property’s gas service provider, for alleged wrongful death. According to Moore’s family, the explosion left her critically injured and led to her death on March 9. The explosion at Moore’s recently leased apartment at the Woodhill Apartments allegedly left her with third- and fourth-degree burns on more than 40% of her body.

The Defendant: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The defendants in the case are SPT Wah Woodhill LLC, Highmark Residential LLC, and the Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, identified in the lawsuit as the Woodhill Apartment complex’s owner, managing organization, and gas services provider. According to the lawsuit, there were years of complaints about the smell of leaking gas in the building. Orange County fire crews also allegedly identified an unplugged natural gas line in Moore’s laundry room as the source of leaked natural gas and the cause of the explosion. However, investigators are yet to confirm if the unplugged line was the cause of the March 1, 2024 explosion. Also mentioned in the lawsuit are alleged years of complaints regarding the smell of leaking gas in the 600 apartment complex building, where Moore had signed a lease about two weeks prior.

The Case: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The wrongful death lawsuit (filed on April 2, amending a March 8 complaint) seeks damages in the loss of earnings from the day Moore was injured to the date of her death, as well as the loss of income to her family due to her death. The family also seeks payment of all medical and funeral expenses. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial.

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