David M. Derubertis

Studio City

Employment,Catastrophic Injury/Wrongful Death & Contingency Business Litigation

David M. deRubertis's recent successes, particularly the historic jury verdicts in Martinez/Page v. SCE/Edison and Callahan v. Marriott, underscore his expertise and ability to navigate complex and challenging legal battles.

In the first matter, there was widespread sexual harassment at one of SoCal Edison's locations, which one of the plaintiffs objected to. It also alleges that second plaintiff was retaliated against for supporting complaints brought forward by others about the workplace environment.

Yet the jury valued his emotional distress at $16 million, in addition to a historic $400 million punitive damages verdict.

These cases highlight a significant trend in the valuation of emotional distress and the impact of non-economic damages in employment law cases.

"Both cases were ones where the defense did not see the significant damage upside given the complicating factors. But both juries saw it very differently," deRubertis said. "I'm proud of these results because they show the value of so-called emotional harm cases, and part of why we showed the value of emotional harm is that we did not buy into the construct that the harm was purely emotional. Emotional harm can not only cripple the soul, but it can eat away at one's body too. In both cases, we put on evidence of the horrific effect on one's body of prolonged emotional stress, major depression, etc.," deRubertis said.

deRubertis's perspective on the evolving litigation landscape showcases the importance of being adaptive and vigilant in protecting the rights of plaintiffs to pursue fair compensation.

"One of the latest trends I see is the defense trying to use motions in limine or other pre-trial rulings to improperly hamstring how plaintiff lawyers can present damages. It's a disturbing trend, but it's also telling. It shows how much the defense is afraid of juries properly and fairly valuing cases. On the plaintiff-side, we need to resist these improper attempts to limit damage presentations at trial. The legal basis for these attacks is flawed and is contrary to literally decades of case law, if not longer," said deRubertis.