Providing caring and compassionate representation Since 1995

[et_pb_dcsbcm_divi_breadcrumbs_module separator="sep-arrow" admin_label="Breadcrumbs" module_class="fl-breadcrums" _builder_version="4.14.8" body_text_color="#ffffff" body_font_size="18px" fontsbreadcrumblinks_font="|600|||on||||" fontsbreadcrumblinks_text_color="#ffffff" fontsbreadcrumblinks_font_size="18px" hover_enabled="0" global_colors_info="{}" fontsbreadcrumblinks_text_color__hover_enabled="off" fontsbreadcrumblinks_text_color__hover="#d93b48" sticky_enabled="0" _i="0" _address="" theme_builder_area="et_body_layout" /]

Case Results

Since he began practicing law, attorney Barraza has been involved in excess of 30 cases that have resulted in settlements or verdicts for his clients in excess of one million dollars. A few examples of the cases and results obtained by Mr. Barraza are:

  • Mr. Barraza was co-counsel on a case where he represented pedestrians who were hit by a car as they attempted to cross the street in front of Sharp Mary Birch Hospital in San Diego. The pedestrians had parked on a dirt shoulder across the street from the Hospital and were hit by a car driven by a physician returning to the Hospital as they walked across the street. The doctor testified that he never saw the pedestrians until the point of impact because it was very dark and there was no lighting on the dirt shoulder of the roadway. As a result, one pedestrian suffered serious injuries and the other pedestrian died as a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision. A law suit was filed against the doctor who hit the pedestrians as well as the City of San Diego. The City was sued because the City allowed parking on the dirt shoulder but did not provide a crosswalk for pedestrians to cross. The City was aware that there had been several auto vs. pedestrian collisions on this roadway over the years and although the City Engineers had been requested to eliminate parking on the dirt shoulder by Sharp Executives, the San Diego Police Department, City Parking Enforcement as well as members of the public, the City continued to allow parking on the dirt shoulder. After several years of litigation and a four-week trial, the case settled for the physician’s insurance policy limits of $500,000 and $4,800,000 from the City of San Diego. The case was settled for a total of $5,300,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a mechanic employed at a Tire Store chain who was sexually harassed and assaulted by the male store manager. The unwanted harassing conduct consisted of the manager blowing kisses to the Plaintiff multiple times; hugging and then kissing the Plaintiff against his will; the manager rubbing his crotch into the backside of Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was bent over working on an engine; the manager calling the Plaintiff “handsome” and “my love”; the manager dancing and twerking in front of Plaintiff while the radio was playing; and dry-humping another male employee while in the presence of and smiling at Plaintiff. During the investigation of the matter, two other male employees who were also subjected to unwanted harassing conduct by the store manager came forward and filed a claim against the Tire Company as well. It was discovered through diligent legal investigative work that other employees had complained to Human Resources against the store manager prior to Plaintiff becoming employed and the company did nothing to address the complaints. The case settled during mediation for a high six figure amount.
  • Mr. Barraza represented two mechanics and a tire technician against another Tire Store chain who were sexually harassed and assaulted by the male store manager. In this case, the store manager subjected each Plaintiff, as well as other non-parties to unwanted harassing conduct consisting of dry-humping while the workers were bent over working on the engines; pinching and slapping of their buttocks; the showing of images of naked men on defendant’s cell phone; asking workers to show him their penis if they wanted to go home early because whoever had the biggest penis would get to go home early. The manager also routinely made crude and vulgar comments and statements to the workers such as “You are too old to f _ _ _” and “I would f _ _ _ her so good that I would make her scream” referring to a customer in addition to other vulgar comments as well as engaging in other distasteful and disgusting behavior. The case settled during mediation for a mid six figure amount.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a female food prep worker in a case against a Gaslamp Restaurant where the employee was continually harassed by the kitchen manager. The male kitchen manager subjected Plaintiff to unwanted harassing conduct consisting of telling Plaintiff she had nice tits, rubbing his crotch against Plaintiff’s buttock as he walked past her while she was working at her station; attempting to kiss Plaintiff; telling Plaintiff you are so beautiful, I want you to have my babies and “You are so tempting, one of these days I am just going to kiss you.” The kitchen manager and another manager working in the kitchen would drink beer during their breaks and come back highly intoxicated which fueled and made the harassment worse. Defendant would tell Plaintiff, “I would like to bend you over right here” and “I would love to throw you down on the table and F _ _ _ you” in addition to other crude and vulgar comments. The kitchen manager would also send Plaintiff to the walk-in freezer for food items at which point he would follow her and try to block her exit as he tried to kiss her. On one occasion, the Plaintiff slapped him in order to get away from him which prompted the kitchen manager to call her a lesbian. The unwanted conduct continued until Plaintiff left her employment with the restaurant. The case settled for a confidential amount in the high six figures.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a female food prep worker against a Mexican Food Restaurant who was continually harassed by the kitchen manager. The kitchen manager subjected Plaintiff to a series of unwelcomed comments about her breasts and body while they worked closely together. The kitchen manager would leer at Plaintiff’s breasts and make an excuse to reach across where Plaintiff was standing to grab something with his hand and at the same time intentionally rub his forearm on Plaintiff’s breasts. During the time the two worked together, the kitchen manager began asking Plaintiff personal questions such as; did it hurt when you had a cesarean section and breast augmentation. Plaintiff was perplexed as to how the kitchen manager discovered that she underwent the two surgeries as she never discussed the procedures with anyone and it was not obvious that she had breast implants. One day while Plaintiff was using the designated female bathroom at the restaurant, she saw that there was a blinking light coming from within the trashcan. She peeled back the plastic trash bag liner and discovered that someone had cut a hole in the trashcan and taped their cellphone to the inside of the can with the camera lens pointed towards the toilet. Plaintiff retrieved the cellphone which became clear that it belonged to the kitchen manger when he began banging on the bathroom door demanding that she return the cellphone to him. Plaintiff refused and it was later determined that the kitchen manager was recording females using the bathroom with his cellphone which was controlled by his Apple watch. The police were called and the kitchen manager was arrested. The case settled for a confidential amount.
  • Mr. Barraza represented two female employees against a Nursery in North San Diego County who were the victims of constant unwanted harassment by their supervisor. Their supervisor subjected both female Plaintiffs to a series of unwelcomed comments about their breasts and body while they worked closely together. He would tell the Plaintiffs that he would like to have a threesome with them and that if they gave him a chance to make love to them, they would “hear the sky thunder” as they experienced pleasure like never before. The supervisor’s comments were so pervasive that other employees joined in sexually harassing the two female employees. The plaintiffs eventually resigned their employment when they discovered that there was a space between the door and the door frame in the female bathroom which allowed others to peak into the bathroom from the outside through the crack between the door and the frame. The Plaintiffs realized why the other employees had set up a mirror on the back wall of the bathroom which allowed a person peaking into the bathroom to see the entire bathroom by looking at the reflection in the mirror. The case settled for a confidential amount.
  • Mr. Barraza represented an older female patron against a Restaurant & Brewery in the Mission Valley area of San Diego. The Plaintiff had gone to the restaurant to celebrate her retirement from teaching. This matter involved Plaintiff slipping and falling inside the restaurant as she was walking to the bathroom. As a result of her fall, she sustained injury to her shoulder which required surgery. The incident was captured on video. Plaintiff’s theory of liability against the restaurant was that one of the servers seen in the video had placed one of the trays used to carry drinks to the guest tables in a vertical position thereby violating company policy. Carrying an empty tray vertically after drinks were served allowed the liquid on the tray to spill onto the floor creating a dangerous condition on the premises. The video also showed that one server did not use a tray to carry drinks to a table allowing some of the liquid to spill onto the floor thereby creating a slipping hazard. This also violated company policy. The case settled for a confidential amount.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a young man against a Dairy arising from a pick-up vs. semi collision that occurred in Brawley, California. The Dairy was located in Yuma, Arizona and had sent a delivery of milk to several Costco’s in the Los Angeles area. After making the deliveries, the driver was driving back to the Diary in Yuma when he ran a red light at the intersection of Highway 79 and State Route 111. As a result, the Plaintiff sustained a serious cervical injury. At the scene, the semi driver informed the police that he had ran the red light. Based on his statements to the police at the scene, the police concluded that the semi driver was responsible for having caused the collision. However, the semi driver’s statements changed once insurance and lawyers got involved and he was now stating something completely different than what he had told the police. Consequently, the semi driver and his employer were now claiming that they were not responsible for causing the collision. Mr. Barraza then hired experts which were able to download the data from the Event Data Recorder in Plaintiff’s pick-up as well as the data from the semi-tractor driven by the defendant. The information revealed the rates of speed for each vehicle in the few seconds prior to the impact and whether speed was increasing or decreasing as well as the moment when brakes were applied for each vehicle. The information corroborated Plaintiff’s version of events that he was either at a complete stop at the intersection or moving very slowly when his light turned green and he proceeded into the intersection. The data retrieved from the semi-tractor was also consistent with the fact that the semi driver had ran the red light and then slammed on his brakes. The case settled during mediation for $450,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a man driving a motorcycle on a two-lane road when an unattended car rolled down a driveway due to the owner’s negligence in failing to ensure the vehicle’s transmission was in the “Park” position. This occurred as the motorcyclist rounded a curve. As a result, the motorcyclist had insufficient time to perceive and react to the car causing the broadside collision. As a result, the motorcyclist sustained injury to his right leg. The owner of the vehicle had a $100,000 policy which was offered immediately. Unfortunately, the damages exceeded those policy limits. Litigation continued until the owner of the vehicle paid an additional $100,000. The case concluded with a $200,000 result for the client.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a young lady that was driving her vehicle on a two-lane highway. As she rounded a curve, a man in an oncoming vehicle crossed over into her lane of travel causing his vehicle to collide with hers in a side to side collision. Due to the impact, the young lady sustained a serious injury to her left lower extremity. Mr. Barraza was able to settle the case for the man’s insurance policy limits of $250,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a four year old girl who accompanied her parents to their neighbor’s home. While at the neighbor’s home, the young girl began to play with the neighbor’s Chihuahua dog. The neighbors failed to warn the young girl or her parents about their dog’s temperament and/or prevent her from playing with the dog. As she played with the dog inside the house, the dog bit her face just above her upper lip. Mr. Barraza was able to settle the case for the homeowner’s policy limits of $100,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a man driving a vehicle westbound on I-8 when a truck that was also westbound on I-8 crossed over onto the vehicle’s lane of travel. The truck collided with the vehicle causing the vehicle to drive off the road and down an embankment. The case settled for the Motor Carrier’s policy limits of $750,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a lady who was unloading groceries from her car parked in her driveway when a neighbor who was walking his dog walked by. With the owner’s permission, she leaned down to pet the dog when the dog bit her face on her right cheek. Mr. Barraza was able to settle the case for the homeowner’s policy limits of $100,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a man against a local utility company after the man sustained an electrical burn when his ladder came into contact with an electrical wire as the man was harvesting oranges from a tree. The Public Utilities Commission mandated that the Utility Company raise their wires to a certain distance above the tree line which they had failed to do. Mr. Barraza was able to settle the case for $275,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented several property owners against the Gas & Electric Company that caused several of the 2007 wild fires in San Diego County. Mr. Barraza was able to obtain in excess of $13,000,000 for his clients.
  • Mr. Barraza was co-counsel on a case where he represented a construction worker employed by a drywall sub-contractor who was in the process of installing drywall on a framed wall when an adjoining wall collapsed over the worker. As a result, the worker sustained serious injuries. The action was brought against the General Contractor who retained control over the job site and was responsible for the overall safety on the site. The case was settled for $1,000,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a motorcyclist who sustained serious injuries when a vehicle broadsided the motorcycle on the right side as the motorcyclist made a left turn. The collision occurred after an oncoming vehicle came to a stop in order to allow the motorcyclist to turn. As the vehicle was stopped, a second vehicle came up behind the stopped vehicle and attempted to pass it at this intersection when that vehicle crashed into the motorcycle. Mr. Barraza was able to settle the case for the insurance policy limits of $300,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a seventh-grade student against a local school district. The student was injured during PE class when a soccer goal post toppled over and hit his head. The school had failed to tie or anchor down the goal post. The metal post fractured his skull and caused a serious head injury. After he was air lifted to the hospital, he underwent surgery and was placed in an induced coma. He required extensive speech, physical and occupational therapy to assist him in performing what had been routine daily activities. He suffered cognitive deficits and developed significant vision impairments. After litigating the case for two years, the case settled for $9,300,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented the widowed husband and two adult children of an elderly lady who died as a result of injuries she sustained when she and a friend were hit by a truck while walking across the street in a marked mid-block crosswalk. The driver was unaware that a mid-block crosswalk was there until after the accident. In addition to suing the driver, the County was also sued because there were no signs at the crosswalk, no flashing beacons, no in-pavement lighting and no lights on adjacent poles to inform motorists of the location of the crosswalk. The County also failed to produce a plan or design with engineering studies that would have been required before installing the crosswalk at that location. The case proceeded to trial which resulted in a $1,800,000 jury verdict.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a college student who was riding his bike within the bike lane when he was hit by motorist who had swerved into the bike lane. The bicyclist sustained a laceration to his head and injury to his right knee. The driver responsible for the accident had a minimal policy which was immediately paid. Unfortunately, the damages exceeded those policy limits. A claim was then filed against the injured client’s own automobile insurance. The case was mediated and settled for $325,000.
  • Mr. Barraza represented a man who was driving his pickup on the freeway when he was rear-ended by a semi truck. The semi driver had exceeded his allowable driving time and failed to see that the pick-up truck was slowing down to exit. The client sustained injuries to his left arm and shoulder as well as other internal injuries. As a result, the case settled for $750,000.
  • Mr. Barraza was co-counsel on a case representing a motorcyclist against the state of California who suffered a below-the-knee leg amputation when a state employee failed to yield before making a left turn. After the jury rendered a favorable verdict for the injured motorcyclist, the state of California appealed. The case settled for just over $9,000,000 during the appeal.
  • Mr. Barraza was co-counsel in an Intellectual Property case that was tried over a period of a month and a half in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case concluded in a $5,000,000 result for his clients.
  • He was co-counsel in a personal injury case which involved a man who had suffered third degree burns over 90% of his body. The case resulted in a verdict in excess of $7,000,000 for his client.
  • He was also co-counsel in a case of a man seriously injured in a construction site accident where after three weeks of trial. The case concluded with a $2,000,000 result for his client.
  • Mr. Barraza was also co-counsel in a case involving a semi-truck accident where the trucking company denied all responsibility for the accident. The case was taken to trial and after the second day of trial, The case settled for $500,000.
  • Mr. Barraza has also represented clients in cases involving accidents dealing with auto vs. motorcycle, semi truck vs. auto and most recently a serious accident involving a passenger bus that crashed and rolled over as it traveled down a mountain, resulting in multiple deaths and catastrophic injuries to many passengers.