David M. deRubertis

Studio City

Employment Law

David M. deRubertis' focus on plaintiff-side employment, catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death has led to his reputation among other lawyers as the one to call when settlement fails and trial approaches.

That's what happened with an employment and civil rights matter in San Francisco in which the plaintiff's original lawyer asked deRubertis to appear for the trial. In mid- August, he was in the thick of pretrial motion practice and about to begin jury selection.

The case involved a hotel concierge who claimed that his employer's failure to accommodate his disability led to serious medical problems. Callahan v. Marriott Marquis Hotel et al., CGC-20-584599 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed May 28, 2020).

"Getting brought in when most of the discovery is done and trial is around the corner is a big part of what I do," deRubertis said. "It's like the old days in school of cramming for a test."

In the Callahan litigation, he'd had more time to prepare than is sometimes the case. An extreme example of a compressed schedule came last year and it turned out favorably: when mediation failed 45 days before the scheduled trial date, deRubertis and the plaintiff's original counsel agreed that deRubertis would try a sexual harassment and retaliation matter that resulted in the largest jury verdict in an employment case in U.S. history: $460 million for two plaintiffs. Martinez and Page v. Southern California Edison Co. et al., BC670461 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 1, 2017).

In that case, co-counsel Brennan S. Kahn of Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin & Harrison APC had done most of the prep work. "Brennan had the best work-up you could ever find," deRubertis said.

DeRubertis thrives on the pressure of parachuting into an approaching trial with most of the discovery already accomplished. "It gives me a distinct advantage," he said. "You're not in the weeds. You get more of a bird's-eye view of the masses of data available, so you can translate it into a simple story. I find it easier to see the big picture."

His view sometimes differs from that of the originating lawyer. "Sometimes, that lawyer is invested in his perspective. I say, 'Wait a minute, what is the story that can be pulled from the truths that are in the discovery materials?'"

It was a learned technique. "When I started being brought into cases, I did it the wrong way. I read every single depo. Now I confer with the original lawyer, look at the key documents, and immerse myself."

The downside? "You can exhaust yourself before the trial starts. But then you are in front of the jury and the adrenaline kicks in."

--John Roemer