This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
General Negligence

Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D. v. Robert Marshall, Quantum Nutrition Labs, Premiere Research Labs, Quantum Health Systems, Matthew Storey, Christopher Patterson, Cory Hillis, and Does 1 through 100

Published: Apr. 11, 2015 | Result Date: Mar. 12, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2012-00602261 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Richard K. Bridgford
(Bridgford, Gleason & Artinian)


Defendant

Jamie Lynn Keeton
(Schlichter & Shonack LLP)

Kurt A. Schlichter
(Schlichter & Shonack LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Alfredo Molina
(technical)

Defendant

Charles Carmona
(technical)

Facts

On May 20, 2012, Plaintiff Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D., attended a hands-on, educational seminar conducted by defendant Robert Marshall 's employees, defendants Matthew Storey, Christopher Patterson, and Cory Hillis. The seminar, which was held at plaintiff's office, allegedly required all participants to remove their valuables. Plaintiff removed her diamond engagement and wedding rings. After the seminar concluded, her rings could not be located.

Plaintiff sued defendants including Marshall's businesses Quantum Nutrition Labs, Premiere Research Labs, and Quantum Health Systems.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendants impliedly agreed to safeguard her ring, which created an implied bailment. Plaintiff further contended that such bailment was for hire because defendant demonstrators were present to demonstrate a product that they hoped the doctor would purchase to use in her practice.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants maintained that they did not agree to undertake the safeguarding of the valuables, and did not even observe the ring in question, and therefore no bailment was created.

Damages

Plaintiff's expert testified that the ring in question was worth between $94,000 and $97,000. Defendants' expert valued the ring at between $28,000-$34,000.

Result

Verdict for defendants. The jury found 12-0 that no bailment was created.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 2, 2012.

Deliberation

35 minutes

Poll

12-0 (formation of implied bailment)

Length

3.5 days


#118877

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390