Timothy Casserly - Judicate West

Introduction

With a combined 25 years of experience on the bench, Judge Casserly has presided over hundreds of civil trials and managed more than 1,000 matters. Appointed to the San Diego County bench in 1996, he oversaw criminal jury trials before becoming a criminal supervising judge, assigning cases for trial and settling hundreds of matters each month. In 2004, Judge Casserly was reassigned to the San Diego Superior Court Trial Department, handling civil trials and conducting weekly civil settlement conferences.

From 2010 until his retirement, he served on the Civil Independent Calendar Department, managing a high caseload, and conducting over 300 judicial settlement conferences nationwide. During his time on the bench, Judge Casserly served on the Center for Judicial Education and Research’s New Judge Orientation Faculty, helping new judges adjust to their roles and responsibilities. Prior to the bench, Judge Casserly also spent a combined 15 years as a deputy district attorney for Sacramento and San Diego counties.

Recognized by his peers for his dedication to the legal community and the hundreds of successful settlement conferences he conducted while on the bench, Judge Casserly received the 'Judge Moon Award' from the North County Bar Association in 2021.

Judge Casserly says, “During my time on the bench the job I enjoyed the most was conducting settlement conferences. I really became passionate about it. I’m looking forward to continuing to help people settle their cases in the private sector.”

Practice Areas

Experience Summary

Below is a sampling of the various matters Hon. Timothy M. Casserly, Ret. presided over on the bench, tried as an attorney, or handled as a neutral.

Read More

Hobbies & Interests

Judge Casserly enjoys playing tennis, golf, and horseback riding.

Testimonials

"Judge Casserly was extremely helpful in explaining the case to my client so he understood how difficult of a case it would be in trial, and to accept the best offer they provided him during mediation. "
- Attorney at a Personal Injury Firm

"Judge Casserly was above reproach, exceeding even his strong reputation. It was a long day, but we owe a debt of gratitude to him for his efforts. I can’t wait to retain His Honor’s services in future matters – truly superb. "
- Attorney on a Real Property/Landlord Tenant Case

"The mediation went great! Judge Casserly was excellent in communicating with both sides and conveying the legal issues to the Plaintiff."
- Attorney on a Personal Injury Slip & Fall Case

"In our recent mediation with Judge Casserly, he impressed me by being exceptionally well prepared and fully understanding of the complex issues from the perspectives of both sides. He was able to use his extensive experience, both as a trial judge and an effective settlement judge, to keep the mediation moving in a positive direction. He conducted the entire mediation in a professional and congenial manner that made the attorneys and their clients feel comfortable with the process."
- Attorney on a Personal Injury Auto Case

"I have been in front of Judge Casserly many times over the years when he was on the bench. Judge Casserly works extremely hard and goes above and beyond. After he retired, I worked with him on a mediation in which he helped the parties reach a good settlement. I am very glad that he retired and became a neutral at Judicate West!"
- Attorney on a Tort Personal Injury/Premises Liability Case

"Judge Casserly is highly skilled and helped us to resolve a large damages case."
- A Top Southern California Lawyer and San Diego North County Bar Association's Attorney of the Year

"Judge Casserly did a great job. This was a multiple-date meditation. Judge Casserly stayed with the case and even accommodated a last-minute final mediation attempt. The last attempt was successful due in no small part to the judge. From a Plaintiff’s perspective, Judge Casserly was able to break the process down for the plaintiff and normalize their higher than reasonable recovery expectations. No small accomplishment in this particular case. At the same time, he was able to find a little extra “hidden” money on the defense side. All in all very happy and grateful for his hard work. "
- Attorney on a Personal Injury Case

"Casserly was great, clear, and empathetic."
- Attorney on a Personal Injury Auto Case

Links and Articles

Daily Journal Profile - The Lifeguard - August 2022

Experience Summary

Legal Career

Full-time Neutral, Judicate West (2021-Present)
Judge, San Diego Superior Court (1996 -June 2021); North County Civil IndependentCalendar Department (2010-2021); North County Trial Department (2004-2010); North County Criminal Presiding Department (2000-2004); North County Criminal Trial Department (1998-2000); North County Municipal Court Criminal Trial Department (1996-1998)
Deputy District Attorney, San Diego County (1986-1996)
Deputy District Attorney, Sacramento County (1981-1986)

Education & Professional Affiliations

J.D., University of Southern California School of Law (1981)
B.A., California State University, Los Angeles (1978)
Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine Law, “Mediating the Litigated Case”
Todd Inn of Court, Member (2018-Present)
Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Member (ABTL) (2015-Present)
Lopardo Inn of Court, Member (2012 – Present)

Achievements & Awards

North County Bar Association's Judge Moon Award (2021)

Legal Experience

All types of Personal Injury including Wrongful Death
Business/Contractual
Employment
Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith
Medical Negligence
Probate
Real Property

Representative Case Information

Recent Representative Cases

Business/Commercial

Consumer Class Action

Class members lived in an apartment complex. The representative class members claimed that there were constant bed bug infestations in apartments and common areas throughout the complex. They claimed that the landlord did not comply with Civil Code Section 1954.605 regarding giving notice to the tenants regarding the pest control operator's findings.

Contractual

Plaintiff construction company sued another construction company for payment on promissory notes. Defendant denied that the promissory notes were valid. Defense filed a cross-complaint alleging that Plaintiff caused Defense to lose money on the project.
Plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sued the landlord/developer for breach of contract based on the landlord's failure to properly maintain the shopping center which caused the plaintiff to lose profits. Landlord cross-complained for failure to pay rent.
Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a partnership agreement. The asset of the partnership was a single-family home that had been purchased by the Defendants. The purpose of the partnership was to fix up and sell the house. Plaintiffs invested in the property and became partial owners. Over a decade later, the Defendants were living in the property and the property had not yet been sold. Plaintiffs sued to dissolve the partnership and force a sale of the property.
Two dentists formed a corporation with one dentist providing the care to patients and the other would provide support services through another company he owned. They ran into problems because the treating dentist believed the other dentist was engaging in self-dealing and siphoning off profits of their corporation to his own corporation.
The plaintiff attorney did transactional work for a tech start-up company. He did not have a written retainer agreement. He submitted monthly invoices with block billing. The company paid some of the money that was billed. The company claimed that it did not have the funds to pay it all. They could not come to an agreement on a payment plan so the plaintiff sued his client on a quantum meruit theory.
Plaintiff purchased a yacht with twin diesel engines. He bought the ship as is knowing there was work that needed to be done on the ship including investigating a knocking sound that was occurring on the port side engine. He took the yacht in to be repaired and the engine ended up being completely rebuilt. After receiving the boat back, Plaintiff drove it and the repaired engine froze up on that first trip. It was determined that there was no oil in the engine. The boat repair company denied responsibility.

Fraud/Misrepresentation

Defendant is a house flipper. Defendant owned a property for a few months before putting it back on the market. Plaintiff purchased the property. After close of escrow, Plaintiff found problems with plumbing, electrical, and a cracked slab which he contended had not been disclosed. Defendant claimed the disclosures were adequate because Defendant had no knowledge of these problems.
Plaintiff purchased a horse. Her trainer helped broker the sale. He also acted as her agent at the veterinary prepurchase exam. After the exam, the trainer told her that the vet check had gone perfectly. Based on those representations she purchased the horse. She claimed never to have seen a report or spoken to the vet before the sale. The horse later became lame. She eventually got the prepurchase report which showed some indications to be concerned about lameness. Plaintiff sued the trainer for fraud.
Plaintiff was contacted by a solar company salesman. Salesman attempted to sell Plaintiff a Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA). Plaintiff had lots of unanswered questions and never signed a contract. Workers came on her property and installed the panels anyway. The solar company began charging the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed she never signed a contract.

Construction

Constr. Defect/Real Property

Plaintiff, the owner of lower property, sued Defendant, owner of upper property, for flooding damage on Plaintiff's property after a rainstorm. Plaintiff claimed that construction and grading on Defendant's property caused water to be diverted to Plaintiff's property.

Construction Breach Of Contract

The Water Authority contracted with a company to design floating docks on a city reservoir. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build and install the docks. The boards began to crack. Dispute as to whether the problem with the boards was due to the design or the installation.
The plaintiff contractor hired a sub to do some work on a tenant improvement project at a mall. During the course of construction, the sub's employees caused water damage to occur twice on the mall property. The property owner refused to allow the sub back on the property. The contractor hired a new sub to do the work. The contractor then sued the sub to recover the substantial costs associated with hiring the new sub and for having to tear out and redo a lot of the first sub's work.

Construction Defects

Plaintiff entered into a contract with a contractor to build a custom home. The home was to be completed within several months. Almost a year and a half later, the home was not completed. Plaintiff hired subs to finish the project. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and defective construction.

Employment

Discrimination

Plaintiff was working as an assistant professor at a university. She claimed that she was not being paid as much as other assistant professors who were doing similar work.
Plaintiff worked as a sous chef for a restaurant. She did not get along well with the head chef. She told the owners he sexually harassed her, but did not give details. Chef denied. They continued to work together but did not get along. The owners decided to fire her. They gave her a period of time that she could work and then she would be let go. At that point, Plaintiff gave them more information about the sexual harassment. After she was fired she sued for wrongful termination

PAGA

Plaintiff made a claim for various Labor Code violations and a PAGA claim. Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, claimed that employees were paid different rates for different tasks. Some tasks were paid hourly and others were paid piece rate. However, if both types of tasks were done in one day and the total amount of those hours worked was greater than eight hours, overtime was not paid.

Retaliation

Plaintiff worked as a meat cutter at a market. He was a recent immigrant. He claimed that he was discriminated against because of his ethnicity and religion. He claims he was constructively terminated from his employment. He also claims he was misclassified as an exempt salaried employee.
The plaintiff worked as the used car manager for a car dealership for a number of years. He was an at-will employee. He was fired and replaced by a much younger man. Plaintiff sued for wrongful termination based on age discrimination. The defense claimed that he was fired for poor performance.

Sexual Harassment

Plaintiffs were employees at a small retail business. They worked for defendant for a period of time. During that time they claim that Defendant owner made inappropriate racial and sexual comments creating a hostile work environment. They quit and later sued for constructive termination and Labor Code violations.

Wrongful Termination

Plaintiff worked as a salesman for a company. He complained about racial harassment. The company did an investigation and found the complaint to be valid. The company took some remedial action. After that, the plaintiff claimed that as a result of his complaint he was demoted, and eventually furloughed and constructively terminated. Defendant claimed that he was a poor salesman and the company's actions had nothing to do with his complaints.
Plaintiff worked for a public entity. He was progressively disciplined for various reasons regarding his actions and job performance. Eventually, he was fired. After he was fired Plaintiff sued the public entity and claimed that all actions taken against him by the public entity were because of his race.
Plaintiff worked as the controller at a small construction company. She suffered from back problems. She claimed that she was fired after she gave the company a letter from her doctor saying she needed time off from her back injury. She claimed the company wanted to avoid paying her for workers comp. The defense contended that she quit and only sent them the doctor's note after she quit.
The claimant was hired as a controller for a construction company. She worked for the company for about six months and she was fired. She claimed that she had been fired because she had pointed out irregular or illegal accounting practices involving government projects. Respondent claimed that she was fired because she had misrepresented her abilities when she was hired and was completely incompetent.

Insurance

Subrogation

Plaintiff insured the common areas of a condominium next to a golf course. On an extremely windy day, a eucalyptus tree on the golf course was uprooted and landed on the condominium causing significant damage. The insurance company for the HOA paid for the repairs. The insurance company then sued the golf course to recover the money spent on the repairs.

Intellectual Property

IP Trade Secrets

Trade secret case. Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who previously has brought products to market. He contacted two large technology companies to market a new product. He had signed non-disclosure agreements with both defendants. Plaintiff could never come to terms on a deal with these two companies. Plaintiff then claims that the two defendants put out the product that was his idea.

Probate

Estates/Trusts

Plaintiffs were family members and potential heirs to the decedent's estate. Prior to his passing the decedent put all of his assets in a trust and made his friend the sole beneficiary of the trust. Plaintiffs claimed elder abuse and undue influence.
Plaintiff and Defendant are half-brother and sister. Originally their mother had placed her estate in a trust with the proceeds to be split evenly between them upon her death. Shortly before her death the decedent changed the terms of her trust and created a will disinheriting Plaintiff son and giving everything to Defendant daughter. Plaintiff sued to set aside the changes claiming undue influence. Defendant claimed there was ample evidence to show that decedent had valid reasons for wanting to disinherit son.

Professional Malpractice

Medical Malpractice

Plaintiff, an elderly man, had hip surgery and was thereafter placed in a skilled nursing facility to get care and physical therapy so he could become ambulatory. Plaintiff contended that he did not get physical therapy, was bed-ridden, and did not receive the care involving rotating his body, and as a result, suffered unstageable pressure wounds. Plaintiff sued for negligence and elder neglect.
Plaintiff came to hospital following a stroke. He consented to surgery to place a stent. He suffered significant deficits on his left side following the surgery. Several months later another doctor found there was an occlusion at the stent. The new doctor said it happened at the time of the original surgery and should have been monitored and repaired at that time. The treating doctors denied that there is evidence that the occlusion occurred near the time of the surgery.
Plaintiff went to a phlebotomist for a blood draw. She sat in a chair that was raised and had a hydraulic lift. After the blood was drawn she tried to get out of the chair and fell and broke her hip. Plaintiff sued claiming that the phlebotomist did not act within the standard of care.
Defendant negligently prescribed an extremely high dosage of a statin drug to the plaintiff. Plaintiff ended up in the hospital as a result. She was unable to walk after taking the medication. Plaintiff had significant prior condition issues. There was a significant dispute regarding causation and damages.

Professional Malpractice Legal

A trust attorney prepared trust documents for a couple who were in a long-term marriage. After the attorney began working on the trust documents she was told by the husband that his mother had just died and he had inherited some accounts that he wanted to convert from his separate property to community property. The couple thereafter divorced and the husband still claimed the property as his separate property. The wife sued the trust attorney for malpractice.

Real Estate

Eminent Domain

Inverse condemnation case. Flooding from a creek during a rainstorm caused significant damage to commercial property adjacent to the creek. Plaintiff claimed City did not properly maintain the creek which caused the flooding. City cross complained against lower property owners claiming that if anyone was at fault it was them. Defendant and Cross Defendants all claimed that flooding would have occurred no matter what they had done.
A business noticed that its asphalt driveway kept sinking in places whenever it would rain. The City inspected the area and found that there was a deteriorating storm drain under the driveway area. The City repaired the storm drain but would not repair the asphalt driveway. The City's expert said the sinking asphalt was not caused by the storm drain. Plaintiff's expert said that it was.

Home Owners Association

Plaintiff sued the homeowner's association for failure to maintain the sewage pipes in her unit as required, which damaged her property. The defense contended that they had done everything she requested and claimed she was overstating her damages.

Neighbor Dispute

Plaintiff owned a house in Coronado for many years. Defendant bought the next-door property as a teardown. He hired a surveyor who determined that Plaintiff's guest house encroached several inches on Defendant's property. They were unable to resolve the dispute informally. Plaintiff sued to obtain an equitable easement. Defendant filed a cross-complaint for trespass.
Plaintiff had an easement for ingress and egress over a portion of the property owned by Defendant. The defendant was not originally aware of how far the defendant's property line actually extended when Defendant purchased the property. Once Defendant realized how far his property extended he began treating it as if there were no easement and blocked Plaintiff's access.
The defendant bought a lot from a friend of his about three decades ago. He built a house on the property, landscaped the backyard, and built a fence across the backyard that encroached eight feet on his backyard neighbor's property. This was done with the neighbor's permission. For years he tried to get the neighbor to agree to a lot-line adjustment but the neighbor refused. The neighbor then sold the property to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs asked Defendant to vacate and Defendant refused claiming he had an irrevocable license to use the property in perpetuity.

Property Damage

Defendant cut down the lower neighbor's trees which were blocking his ocean views. Plaintiff filed suit and sought treble damages for trespass.
The city hired a contractor to install a street light on a residential street. While digging the hole for the street light the contractor hit and damaged a sewer line. Dispute between the city and contractor as to whether the city was advised. The property owner was not told. Street light installation competed. Thereafter property owner had major sewage backup problems in the house. The property owner sued the city and the contractor.
The plaintiff lived in a condominium complex. The defendant lived in the unit above him. Plaintiff claimed that on several occasions the defendant left the water on which overflowed onto the floor and then went into his unit causing damage. He also sued the HOA for not taking appropriate action to prevent the damage from happening.

Real Property

Plaintiff attended an open house at a property that was for sale. She tripped on a step and fell severely injuring her shoulder. She sued the property owner for premises liability and the real estate broker for negligence. The defendants denied any liability.
Parties entered into an agreement for the sale of a commercial property. Buyers on two occasions asked to extend the close of escrow. After the second extension, the sellers included several conditions that had to be met before the next escrow closing date. Sellers claimed the buyers did not perform and canceled the sale. Sellers claimed substantial performance and sued for specific performance.
Two couples who are related purchased a house together. One couple put up the bulk of the down payment. The title was taken as a joint tenancy. There was some question as to whether the parties understood joint tenancy. Their separately signed "house sharing agreement" was inconsistent with joint tenancy. One of the owners died and his wife moved out. Everyone agreed the house needed to be sold. There was a dispute as to how the proceeds should be divided.
A real estate developer purchased an older hotel and surrounding rental cottages for the purpose of refurbishing the property and selling it. The tenant in one of the cottages complained constantly about habitability issues with their cottage. The developer gave the tenant a 90-day notice to quit. The tenant would not leave. The developer filed a UD action. The tenant filed a wrongful eviction and habitability case against the developer.
An easement dispute in which the plaintiff had a dispute with a neighbor regarding access to a road that crossed the defendant's property. The defendant had blocked the road with chains across the road. The plaintiff sued claiming he had an express easement. The defendant filed a cross-complaint claiming the easement had been extinguished by adverse possession.

Warranty of Habitability

Plaintiff lived in an apartment near the coast. Her apartment had a musty, damp smell and she was coughing all the time. Because of the conditions, she was forced to vacate the apartment. After moving to a new location she still suffered from respiratory problems that she claimed were caused during her time living in the apartment.

Tort

Assault and Battery

Plaintiff was trespassing on Defendant hotel's property. Hotel employee confronted Plaintiff while Plaintiff was in his car getting ready to leave. Plaintiff got out of the car and approached the employee with pepper spray. The employee then attacked Plaintiff. He broke his arm taking him to the ground, and punched him in the face breaking some bones in his face.
Plaintiff is homeless. He was sleeping on a covered porch at a small restaurant. The owner and an employee came and confronted him. Plaintiff contended that the employee threw him over the railing. The employee denied throwing him but admitted pushing him. Plaintiff was injured when he landed on the ground.

Catastrophic Injury

A case involving a truck v. pedestrian admitted liability accident. The plaintiff suffered numerous injuries including a significant brain injury. The only issues were how much future car would be needed, what was his life expectancy, and what would a jury likely award for pain and suffering.

General Negligence

Plaintiff claimed that a freight elevator gate malfunctioned and hit him on the head. Defense contended that Plaintiff's version of events was physically impossible and that the elevator was incapable of malfunctioning in that manner.
Plaintiff ate a hamburger at a hotel restaurant, and shortly after that, felt very sick. He was taken to the hospital, diagnosed with food poisoning, and spent three days in the hospital.
Plaintiff was a young, special needs child. He was being babysat at a friend's house. The friend's dog bit him on the face. Plaintiff claimed significant psychological damage because of the dog bite. The defense claimed his problems were due to preexisting conditions.
Plaintiff was an elementary school student. He claimed that he had been bullied on a regular basis by other students. The bullying caused severe emotional distress. He claimed that the bullying regularly occurred on the school grounds in the presence of teachers or school administrators who were aware of it and took no action. He sued the school district for negligent supervision.
Plaintiff was staying at a vacation rental condominium. She was walking on a walkway to exit the property and tripped on an area where there were two steps on the walkway. She suffered a broken ankle and had torn ligaments. She was transported to the hospital and had surgery to repair the ankle the next day. Plaintiff contended the dim lighting in the area and the fact that there were no handrails made this a dangerous condition.
Minor was at an indoor playground facility. He tripped and fell and hit his head on a hard surface on one of the pieces of equipment. He had a deep gash on his forehead and had two layers of stitches. He recovered but continues to have a scar on his forehead.
Plaintiffs were working in an abandoned building that was eventually going to be torn down. They were in a room with an electric smart meter. The cover to the control panel had fallen off. One plaintiff tried to put the cover back on the panel and an electrical explosion occurred, burning both plaintiffs. They sued the electric company for failure to properly maintain the equipment.

Personal Injury

Plaintiff tripped and fell on some palm tree berries on a walkway outside an office complex. She hit her head and suffered a brain bleed. She claimed ongoing problems because of this accident. The defendant denied liability.
Plaintiff slipped and fell on some spilled bleach on a store floor. She broke her wrist and claimed that she suffered from chronic regional pain syndrome. The defense claimed that a customer in the store admitted spilling the bleach just before the plaintiff fell however the store employees could not identify this individual.

PI Auto

Plaintiff suffered significant soft tissue injuries in an automobile accident. The accident occurred at a traffic light-controlled intersection. Disputed liability. The issue was as to who ran the red light.
Underinsured motorist case wherein plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in admitted liability rear-end accident. She claims to be in constant pain ever since the accident. She had pre-existing pain complaints.
Plaintiff was driving home in his truck on a two-lane rural road. The defendant was ahead of the plaintiff slowly driving a tractor. As the plaintiff approached he decided to pass the slower vehicle. At the time the plaintiff started to pass, the defendant turned left in front of him to go onto a dirt road. The plaintiff suffered a significant knee injury.
Plaintiff was injured in a car accident. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered many injuries as a result of the accident including traumatic brain injury. Defense contended that most of his complaints were due to unresolved pre-existing conditions.
Plaintiff was driving straight through a signal-controlled intersection on a green light. Defendant made a left turn in front of the plaintiff on a red light causing a collision. Plaintiff suffered knee, hip, and wrist injuries. He had knee surgery to repair his knee.
Three plaintiffs were riding with a large group of cyclists. Defendant made a left turn in front of the group. The three plaintiffs collided with the truck. The driver of the truck said he did not see the group coming. His vision was obscured by bushes on property owned by the state. The cyclists suffered significant injuries.
Auto versus pedestrian accident. Plaintiff was walking in a crosswalk in a shopping center crosswalk. The intersection was controlled by stop signs. Defendant stopped at the stop sign and then made a right turn into the crosswalk striking Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered a broken leg in the accident.
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, were injured in an admitted liability auto accident. The wife's injuries were more significant. She had a broken pelvis and spent several days in the hospital. The husband had a claim for loss of consortium.
Plaintiff was injured in an admitted liability auto accident. He had back pain following the accident and after exhausting ineffective conservative treatment he underwent an implantation of a spinal cord stimulator which was 80 percent effective in reducing his pain.
The plaintiff, a young child, was riding a motor scooter on the street in a residential neighborhood. A collision between the boy and the defendant's vehicle occurred. Plaintiff claimed the defendant was speeding. Defendant claimed she was driving slowly and her vehicle was struck by the plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered a broken leg and a mild concussion.
Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle. He was turning to enter the gas station. He ran over a sign that was laying in the road which caused him to lose control and crash. The sign had been posted at the gas station and had fallen off a pole. Plaintiff suffered a broken hip along with other injuries.
Underinsured motorist case. Claimant family members were in a left turn lane at a controlled intersection. A drunk driver tried to make a right turn onto that street but was going too fast and ran into the driver's side of the claimant's vehicle. All parties were injured. The claimants on the driver's side suffered significant injuries
Sideswipe accident at the intersection of two freeways. Each side claimed the other was at fault for the accident. Soft tissue injuries.
Admitted liability auto accident. Plaintiff suffered neck and back injuries. Plaintiff had been in two prior serious injury auto accidents so there were significant issues as to whether her current complaints were caused by the most recent accident.
Plaintiff was walking along a street very early in the morning in an industrial area. It was dark outside. She crossed the road, not at an intersection. An 18-wheeler truck was driving down the street, did not see her in time, and Plaintiff was struck by the truck. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital where she was kept for over a week. She had broken bones in her face and injured her knees. She also claimed to have suffered a traumatic brain injury. The defense denied liability claiming the accident was Plaintiff's fault.
Plaintiff was in the right front passenger seat of a car being driven by a friend. She was working on her laptop. Another car ran into Plaintiff's car. The force of the accident caused Plaintiff's face to strike the laptop cutting her lip and chin area. She needed several stitches. The issue in the case was whether Plaintiff needed plastic surgery to remove the scarring and the appropriate charges for that surgery if in fact it was needed.
A rideshare driver pulled in front of a restaurant after being contacted to pick up Plaintiff and her friends. Plaintiff was the third person to get in the vehicle. As she started to get in the rear passenger seat the Defendant driver started driving. Plaintiff was dragged a short distance. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance. She later claimed numerous injuries including traumatic brain injury.
Four-car, rear-end accident. Plaintiff was driving the lead car. Dispute between the following cars regarding liability. Dispute as to the extent of injuries caused by the accident.
Admitted liability auto accident. Plaintiff claimed to have torn his right shoulder rotator cuff in the accident. He had surgery to repair it. The defense contended the shoulder could not have been injured in the accident and claimed it was caused by repetitive use from his job and other activities.
The plaintiff was stopped in traffic on a busy two-lane street. He was rear-ended by a truck. The plaintiff had recently recovered from back surgery. Plaintiff claimed several injuries caused by this accident including traumatic brain injury.
Plaintiff was riding her bicycle down a busy two-lane residential street with cars parked along both sides of the street. The driver of a ride-share company was parked on the street. As Plaintiff was riding down the street driver opened his door hitting the plaintiff causing her to fall and break her leg. She spent several days in the hospital and had a difficult recovery. Future surgery to remove hardware will likely be needed.
Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle on a rural two-lane highway and the Defendant was driving a tractor-trailer southbound on that same highway. Defendant made a left turn across Plaintiff's lane. The motorcycle crashed into a truck. Plaintiff suffered numerous broken bones that required many surgeries to prepare. There was an issue regarding liability since Plaintiff was traveling over 20 mph over the speed limit.
A truck versus motorcycle accident in which the plaintiff was in the number 1 lane on the freeway and the Defendant truck driver was in the number 2 lane. The truck veered into the number 1 lane and struck Plaintiff. Plaintiff's wrist was mangled in the crash. He also suffered a concussion, torn labrum, knee injury, back injury, and numerous contusions.

Policy Distribution

Multiple plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident. They had been hit by a drunk driver with a 15/30 policy. There was UIM insurance available for all parties. The collective damages far surpassed that number, so needed to find an equitable way to distribute the available money.

Premises Liability

Plaintiffs claimed that the apartment they rented had mold in it and the landlord did not appropriately remediate the problem. Plaintiffs had to destroy contaminated personal property and one plaintiff needed to seek medical treatment.
Plaintiff fell on a stairway at a commercial business. The stairway did not have handrails. She suffered a broken hip and a torn labrum.
Plaintiff attended a wedding reception. While dinner was being served, the waiter dropped a tray of dinner plates on the plaintiff's head while she was sitting at the table. Plaintiff suffered a closed head injury.
Plaintiff was on an outdoor patio at a golf course restaurant. A sudden gust of wind caused a patio umbrella to fly out of the table and land on Plaintiff's head. Plaintiff claimed traumatic brain injury.
Plaintiff tripped on a tree planter at a theme park. She suffered a broken ankle along with other injuries.
Plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised portion of a city sidewalk. She landed on her face. She lost teeth and suffered injuries to her mouth. She sued the City for dangerous condition of public property. The city claimed it was not a dangerous condition in that it was a "trivial defect."
A medical doctor slipped and fell on a linoleum floor at a hospital where she was making her rounds. She claimed to have knee and back problems as a result of the fall. The hospital disputed liability and claimed her medical problems were due to pre-existing conditions and a prior fall.
Plaintiff was working for a subcontractor that was responsible for demolishing a building for a contractor that was employed by a school district. Plaintiff was told to cut certain gas lines that he was told had been shut off. It turned out the gas had not been turned off and when he cut the pipe it sparked a fire causing him to be severely burned. Complicated issues regarding who was responsible, indemnification agreements, and insurance coverage.
Plaintiff was a non-resident property owner at a condominium complex. She went to an HOA meeting in a conference room at the complex. The entrance to the conference room is made up of large glass sliding doors. As Plaintiff tried to enter she walked into the glass door and fell to the ground. She broke her hip and spent many several weeks in the hospital and skilled nursing facility. The defense position was that in the more than five decades that the complex existed nobody had walked into the glass doors before.
The plaintiff worked in an office building. While working in the office suite one day an air conditioner register fell from the ceiling striking her on the head. The plaintiff suffered a concussion and other injuries. The plaintiff sued the building owner and the air conditioning company that serviced the building. The building owner filed a cross-complaint against the air conditioning company. Both defendants disputed liability.
Plaintiff, an elderly woman, tripped and fell in a damaged area of the asphalt parking lot of a bank, hitting her head The bank had a contract with another company to inspect and make repairs to areas of the property like the parking lot. Plaintiff claimed that she suffered from a traumatic brain injury after the fall. Each of the defendants denied responsibility and both contended that the Plaintiff's complaints were preexisting and that there was no evidence to support a finding of traumatic brain injury.
Plaintiff tripped and fell at night on a single step on a walkway in a townhouse development. Plaintiff claimed the lighting in the area made it difficult to see the step. Plaintiff injured his knee in the fall. He had knee surgery. The knee became infected and his leg had to be severed at the knee. Defendant denied liability.
Plaintiff was shopping in a large indoor fresh flower warehouse. The cement floor was not in pristine condition. There were many, various-sized chips in the floor. Plaintiff tripped on one of those chips, fell, and hit her head on the floor. She was diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury. Defendant denied liability claiming this was a trivial defect in the floor.

Product Liability

Plaintiff was riding her skateboard down a street where construction was occurring on the property along the street. Her skateboard hit a loose screw or bolt in the road near the construction site causing her to fall from the board and break her ankle.
Plaintiff rented a trailer and a piece of equipment from a rental yard. On the return trip, the equipment fell off the trailer. Plaintiff was injured in the process. Plaintiff claimed that the rental yard was negligent in how the equipment was fastened to the trailer and that the manufacturer was responsible for among other things failure to warn.
Plaintiff was cleaning his pool filter. He reassembled the filter and turned on the pool pump. Apparently, he did not turn on the air release valve which resulted in pressure building up in the system which suddenly exploded, causing the top part of the filter container to come off, hitting him and permanently injuring his eye. Plaintiff claimed this was a defective design. The defense claimed Plaintiff did not follow the simple instructions that would have prevented this from occurring.
Plaintiff purchased a new lever-action rifle. He was very experienced with firearms. He went to a private shooting range to try it out. While firing the rifle the barrel exploded causing broken bones in his left hand and his left pinky finger was cut off at the first knuckle. Plaintiff required several surgeries to repair his hand. Plaintiff sued those defendants in the distribution chain for the rifle and the ammunition. Both sides claimed that it was the other defendant or the shooter who was at fault.
Subrogation case in which the plaintiff's insured bought a washing machine. It was installed by a handyman. Insured ran several loads of wash without issue. One day she started a load and left the house when she returned the house was flooded. The insurance company sued the manufacturer. Dispute between insurance company and manufacturer as to the cause of the leak.

Wrongful Death

Wrongful death involving an auto versus auto motor vehicle action. Significant liability issues.
Patient died while under the care of a skilled nursing facility. Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death and dependent adult neglect.
A young adult plaintiff and his wife were out drinking with a group of his friends. They were walking out in a parking area and the plaintiff was carrying his wife. Plaintiff tripped on a small pothole and dropped his wife. She hit her head on the ground and died. Plaintiff sued 2 public entities each of which denied ownership of the location where the incident occurred.
A nursing home case wherein the decedent was a patient in the memory care unit. Another patient in the unit was difficult for staff to control. She committed acts of violence toward other patients and staff. She had acted aggressively toward the decedent on one occasion. On another occasion, she pushed the decedent to the ground causing the decedent to break her hip. The decedent had surgery and never recovered. She died a few months later.
A solo accident involving a rollover bus crash wherein the Defendant bus driver was driving on a highway at approximately 75 miles per hour in heavy rain. He lost control of the vehicle. Several people died and many were injured. Plaintiffs sued the driver and the owner of the bus for negligence. The state's transportation company was sued for dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiffs also sued several companies for product liability involving the bus.
A large construction vehicle ran over a person sleeping on the beach, killing that person. Heirs sued the City and the construction company for wrongful death. Liability issues as to the city. Damages issue as to the value a jury would place on the death of this individual.

Neutral Profile

HON. TIMOTHY M. CASSERLY, RET.

View More Neutrals

HON. TIMOTHY M. CASSERLY, RET.

HON. TIMOTHY M. CASSERLY, RET.

Introduction

Practice Areas

Experience Summary

Hobbies & Interests

Testimonials

Links and Articles

Experience Summary

Legal Career

Education & Professional Affiliations

Achievements & Awards

Legal Experience

Representative Case Information

Recent Representative Cases

Business/Commercial

Consumer Class Action

Contractual

Fraud/Misrepresentation

Construction

Constr. Defect/Real Property

Construction Breach Of Contract

Construction Defects

Employment

Discrimination

PAGA

Retaliation

Sexual Harassment

Wrongful Termination

Insurance

Subrogation

Intellectual Property

IP Trade Secrets

Probate

Estates/Trusts

Professional Malpractice

Medical Malpractice

Professional Malpractice Legal

Real Estate

Eminent Domain

Home Owners Association

Neighbor Dispute

Property Damage

Real Property

Warranty of Habitability

Tort

Assault and Battery

Catastrophic Injury

General Negligence

Personal Injury

PI Auto

Policy Distribution

Premises Liability

Product Liability

Wrongful Death

Downtown Los Angeles

Oakland

Sacramento

San Diego

Santa Ana

West LA/Century City