Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys Marie Trimble Holvick, Jamal Atiba, Quyen Thi Le, and Elizabeth Christie obtained a complete defense verdict on behalf of a well-known Santa Cruz County nightclub following a four-week jury trial in Santa Cruz County Superior Court.
The plaintiff sought more than $8 million in damages, alleging she sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and permanent cognitive impairment after an altercation with two nightclub security guards during a 2019 concert. The plaintiff asserted that the incident resulted in memory loss, decreased processing speed, depression, and the inability to pursue a career in medicine, claiming more than $6 million in future lost earning capacity.
According to the plaintiff, security guards confronted her after requesting proof of a wristband required for access to a restricted area and then allegedly assaulted her when she refused to leave.
The defense presented evidence demonstrating that the security personnel acted in accordance with the nightclub’s established security protocols. The evidence showed the guards requested proof of a wristband to remain in the restricted area, called for additional security assistance, and requested the plaintiff to leave the area. The defense further established that the plaintiff initiated the physical confrontation by kicking and scratching one security guard and biting another and demonstrated that the guards acted in lawful self-defense while attempting to control the situation.
The defense also challenged the plaintiff’s claimed damages by presenting evidence that the alleged cognitive deficits were attributable to pre-existing conditions rather than the incident at issue. Evidence further demonstrated that the plaintiff remained capable of extensive international travel, performed a one-person theatrical production, and had received workplace accommodations. The defense also established that the plaintiff had withdrawn from medical school approximately two years before the altercation, undermining the claim that the incident prevented the plaintiff from becoming a physician.
The plaintiff initially asserted claims of negligence, negligent hiring, premises liability, assault and battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against both the nightclub and the individual security guards. Before trial, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the individual guards from the lawsuit, along with the claims for premises liability, assault and battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, leaving only negligence-based claims against the nightclub.
Following less than two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a 9-3 defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the nightclub was negligent.
As the prevailing party, and because the plaintiff rejected the defense’s statutory offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, the nightclub is entitled to recover its allowable costs and expert witness fees.