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.

Torts
Invasion of Privacy
Lack of Consent

Garrigues v. Hurvitz, et al.

Published: Dec. 24, 2002 | Result Date: Jan. 11, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SC052602 Verdict –  $3,170,000

Judge

Victoria G. Chaney

Court

L.A. Superior Central West


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher Brizzolara
(Law Offices of Gregory W. Smith)

David L. Brandon


Defendant

Stephen E. Ronk
(Gordon & Rees LLP)

Thomas M. Ferlauto
(The Law Office of Thomas M. Ferlauto)


Experts

Plaintiff

Sande Buhai
(Loyola Law School) (technical)

Facts

The defendant Hurvitz, a cosmetic surgeon, obtained, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff Garrigues, a draft complaint bearing the name of the plaintiff on the caption as one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs named in the draft complaint. The draft complaint contained allegations regarding a former associate and competitor of Hurvitz. The defendant Hurvitz, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, provided the draft complaint to the Washington Post. The Washington Post subsequently published an article regarding disputes between the defendant Hurvitz and his former associate and competitor, and quoted some of the allegations from the draft complaint. The publication of the Washington Post article and the responses of the various individuals described therein engendered substantial media attention and exposed the plaintiff to significant amounts of unwanted publicity and concomitant economic and non-economic damages.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff offered to settle the action for $499,999.

Specials in Evidence

$220,000

Damages

Attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the claims asserted against the plaintiff by the former associate and competitor of the defendant Hurvitz, loss of earnings, business opportunities and other economic damages, past, present and future pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, exposure to unwanted publicity, injury to reputation, and invasion of privacy.

Result

Verdict for the plaintiff for $3,170,000 ($450,000 in attorney fees and costs; $220,000 past economic damages and $2.5 million in non-economic damages)

Other Information

The defendant was represented by Gordon & Rees, LLP and King & Ferlauto during pretrial procedures. However, at trial, the defendant made no appearance and presented no defense.

Deliberation

four hours

Length

three days


#80973

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

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