Latest jury verdicts, settlements, and legal outcome analysis
A San Francisco jury ruled in favor of a mother-daughter pair accused of causing injuries in a March 2023 intersection collision, finding the driver was not negligent and awarding the Plaintiff nothing.
A 71-year-old car salesman who worked at BMW of Pembroke Pines for nearly six years sued his former employer claiming he was fired because of his age, race, national origin, and sex, and in retaliation for complaining about discriminatory treatment. The dealership argued he was terminated for repeatedly threatening coworkers and violating the company's workplace safety and violence prevention policy. After a seven-day trial in federal Court in South Florida, the jury found that while the company did take an adverse employment action against him and he had engaged in protected activity, neither his age nor his protected complaints were the reason for his termination. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the dealership.
A Los Angeles jury awarded security guard Jerry Woldum $1,051,277.50 after a massive metal gate at a dialysis center collapsed on him and crushed his legs during his overnight shift. The jury found that the dialysis center, its property owner, and a physician-owner all negligently controlled the work conditions that led to the accident, even though they had received multiple warnings about the defective gate weeks before it fell.
Two Black officers with the Texas Department of Public Safety won a combined $1,662,600 jury verdict after proving their agency harassed them because of their race, retaliated against one of them for complaining about discrimination, and failed to take corrective action despite knowing the harassment was happening. The jury found that McPherson was denied a career assignment and his agency vehicle because he spoke up about racial discrimination, while both officers were subjected to a racially hostile work environment that the agency did nothing to fix.
A federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas found Verizon Wireless liable for infringing a patent covering technology that allows phone calls to switch between Wi-Fi and cellular networks without dropping. The jury awarded $190 million in damages to Aspen Networks, Inc., rejecting Verizon's arguments that the patent was invalid.
A jury in the Eastern District of Texas found Samsung Electronics willfully infringed four patents owned by Collision Communications covering wireless signal processing and multi-user detection technology. The jury awarded $445,494,160.00 as a running royalty. The Court entered judgment affirming the verdict but declined to enhance damages despite the willfulness finding.
Sandra Roger sued her insurer, Farmers Insurance Company, for underinsured motorist benefits after John Carpentier allegedly ran a red light while intoxicated and struck her vehicle in Wolcott, Connecticut, in November 2020. Roger alleged serious and permanent injuries to her neck, back, shoulder, right hip, and chest. Farmers stated it had insufficient knowledge regarding the nature and extent of Roger's injuries and raised special defenses related to policy setoffs and deductions. The jury returned a verdict in Roger's favor and awarded $35,000 in non-economic damages.
Valerie Romo, a truck driver, sued Werner Enterprises under California's FEHA, alleging the company discharged her because of a shoulder and back disability and retaliated against her for requesting accommodations. A jury in the Central District of California returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant on all five claims on October 14, 2025.
Following a month-long jury trial in the Orange County Superior Court, a $15.79 million judgment was secured and fully preserved against Jackson Kwok, the former President and COO of California-based Genera Corporation, and his wife, Annie Mun Nee Wong. While Kwok successfully recovered $180,000 on a cross-claim alleging Genera breached a post-termination settlement agreement, the jury found overwhelmingly in favor of Genera Corporation on its cross-complaint. The jury determined that the senior executives abused their positions of trust to misappropriate and convert corporate funds for personal enrichment. Post-trial, the defense mounted extensive challenges, including motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). All motions were successfully defeated as untimely, leaving the multimillion-dollar verdict intact and securing an additional $623,256 in costs and expert fees for the company.
