Ford Recalls 746,842 2013-2014 Vehicles due to Air Bag Defect

2014 Ford Fusion

2014 Ford Fusion

Ford is recalling 746,842 vehicles from their 2013 and 2014 model years due to an air bag defect.  In all of the affected vehicles, the circuit board in the Restraints Control Module (RCM) may develop a short-circuit over time.  This is because when the conformal coating was applied to portions of the RCM at the plant, the coating will crack or form cavities as the material dries and is exposed to thermal cycling.  If the cracks are exposed to humidity, lead salts may develop between terminals on the printed circuit board resulting in electrical short circuits, potentially affecting RCM performance.  If a short-circuit occurs, the airbag warning indicator will illuminate and cause the airbag not to deploy.  Other restraint systems may be affected because of the short-circuit.

Click here to read the full defect notice:  Ford Air Bag Recall

The following Ford vehicles are affected by this recall:

 

Parts are currently not available for this defect.  Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the RCM, free of charge.  Owners will be sent an interim notification in mid-November 2014.  A second notification will be sent when the remedy parts are available.  Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332.  Ford’s number for this recall is 14S21.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Ford is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Ford Motor Company is not affiliated with this website, and Ford Motor Company has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Ford Motor Company.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Second Uber Driver’s Arrest Shines the Light on Uber’s Failed Safety Policies

Uber has not publicly demonstrated it actually does the police background checks that SF cab drivers are forced to undergo as a condition of being able to carry passengers.

Uber has steadfastly refused to obtain the one million dollar insurance coverage  that cover vehicles driven by San Francisco taxi drivers whose companies are required to carry one million in insurance to protect passengers from others fault.  Instead, Uber, whose profits come from placing people in cars, using surge pricing while ignoring regulations to protect consumers, has sought to shift the responsibility to protect the passengers that creates its profits from placing in Uber cars to the drivers.

Uber has a simple obligation to protect the people it is charging for the “privilege“ of riding in a vehicle with less insurance than the cabs driven by a SF taxi driver on the same streets.

But Uber refuses to acknowledge that part of the privilege of profiting from serving the public is the responsibility to protect its customers.  Simple rules apply; adequate insurance and proper background checks.

Why is a company with 18 billion in capitalization so opposed to having proper insurance and proper background checks?

I wonder how many Uber riders know they are riding in a car driven by someone who may have not been vetted by San Francisco Police, and will not likely have adequate insurance if they are injured?

Uber users, next time you make use your Uber hookup, ask for verification that the driver passed a police background check and has one million in insurance like a San Francisco taxi driver.

On September 27, 2014, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that an Uber driver pled not guilty to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious injury for allegedly hitting a passenger with a hammer.  This is the second such charge involving an Uber driver as another driver allegedly assaulted a passenger in June 2014

Will Uber standup and protect the injured, as the law would require of the cab companies?

Click here to read the full article: Uber Driver Accused of Hammer Attack on S.F. Rider

According to the article, Uber spokesperson Eva Behrend said, “Safety is Uber’s No. 1. Priority.”

Really?

Then why doesn’t Uber have the same insurance as SF taxi drivers?

With 18 billion in capitalization, it sure has the money.  Maybe safety really isn’t Uber’s No. 1 Priority.

A group of San Francisco taxi drivers, who have undergone police background checks, drive cars with meters that have regulated rates to prevent consumer gouging, have the statutorily required insurance to protect passengers as well as third parties in the event of an accident, and drive vehicles that have undergone periodic safety checks, all of which is required by law, are suing Uber on the basis it is a transportation company who has gained an unfair advantage by not complying with the law (e.g. not having insurance, not having the expense of inspecting and maintaining vehicles, or complying with other statutory requirements), and taken customers from the cabbies who are following the law. (See San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC 12-526017)

If you would like more information on this case, please contact The Brandi Law Firm at tjb@brandilaw.com.

Trademark Notice

Uber is a registered trademark of Uber Technologies, Incorporated.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Uber Technologies, Incorporated is not affiliated with this website, and Uber Technologies, Incorporated has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Uber Technologies, Incorporated.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Ignition Switch that Continues to Fail: Chrysler Recalls Another 349,442 Vehicles Worldwide due to Ignition Switch Defect

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee

The year of the defective ignition switch continues.

In their third such recall of 2014, Chrysler has announced a worldwide recall of 349,442 vehicles involving faulty ignition switches that could cause cars to suddenly turn off while driving.

This latest recall affects 5 models from the 2008 line.  These models include, the Jeep Commander and Grand Cherokee SUVs as well as the Chrysler 300 sedan, the Dodge Charger sedan and the Dodge Magnum station wagon.

Earlier this year, Chrysler expanded recall 11V-139 to include an additional 525,205 minivans due to an ignition switch defect and recalled another 643,618 Jeeps from 2006 suffering from the same ignition switch defect.

Because of this defect, Chrysler has recalled over 1 million cars.  GM, who first set off the wave of ignition switch recalls back in February of 2014, has recalled more than sixteen million vehicles alone because of faulty ignition switches.

Chrysler has given owners of the affected models a temporary prescription similar to the one G.M. has given owners of its affected models: Remove car keys from heavy key rings until the faulty part is repaired, minimizing the risk of key rotation.

Click here to read the full New York Times article: Chrysler Recalls 349,000 Vehicles for Faulty Ignition Switch

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Chrysler is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Chrysler Group LLC is not affiliated with this website, and Chrysler Group LLC has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Chrysler Group LLC.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Chrysler Recalls 25,483 Newer Fiat Vehicles due to Air Bag Defect

2014 Fiat 500L

2014 Fiat 500L

Another day, another Chrysler recall.

Chrysler is recalling certain model year 2014-2015 Fiat 500L due to an air bag defect.  These vehicles were manufactured from March 3, 2012, to July 25, 2014.  The defect stems from an assembly error with the driver’s knee airbag.  Irregularities were found in the folding process during assembly of this airbag.  Because of the defect, this may result in improper deployment.  As such, these vehicles failed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection.”

The defect was found in June 2014.  NHTSA conducted testing using an unbelted 25 mph 5th percentile female FMVSS No. 8 flat frontal compliance test on a 2014 Fiat.  The results indicated that the driver right femur load failed to meet the minimum injury criteria.  Chrysler is not aware of any injuries related to this issue.

Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver’s knee air bag, free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin in September 2014.  Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Chrysler’s number for this recall is P42.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Chrysler is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Chrysler Group LLC is not affiliated with this website, and Chrysler Group LLC has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Chrysler Group LLC.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Dallas Jury Awards $73 Million TVM Verdict against Boston Scientific

In the first victory for plaintiffs against Boston Scientific Corp. and their mesh devices, a Dallas, Texas jury found for the plaintiff Martha Salazar and ordered Boston Scientific to pay a staggering $73 million.  Jurors found Boston Scientific to be at fault for the damages that Ms. Salazar suffered as well as a finding of gross negligence, awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff.  The jury awarded approximately $23 million in compensatory damages for her actual and future suffering and $50 million in punitive damages after finding the company was grossly negligent.  (Salazar v. Lopez, District Court for Dallas County, No. DC-12-14349).

Salazar, was implanted with an Obtryx sling on January 17, 2011 by Dr. Jorge Lopez to treat urinary leakage.  As a result of the alleged defective device, Salazar suffered from permanent nerve damage, constant pelvic pain, and had to endure four subsequent surgeries.

Click here to read the full Reuters article: Boston Scientific Ordered to Pay $73 million Over Mesh Device

Boston Scientific plans to appeal the verdict.

The verdict is the third case to go to trial against Boston Scientific over their devices.  The first two, tried in Massachusetts, resulted in verdicts absolving the company of liability.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

On April 4, 2014, a Dallas jury found for the plaintiff Linda Batiste and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.2 million for its defective design of the Ethicon TVT-O pelvic mesh.

Two Massachusetts juries recently rejected women’s claims that Boston Scientific’s incontinence sling was defective designed and injured women.

On September 5, 2014, a federal jury in West Virginia found for the plaintiff Jo Huskey and ordered Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon to pay $3.27 million.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Boston Scientific is a registered trademark of Boston Scientific Corp. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Boston Scientific Corp. is not affiliated with this website, and Boston Scientific Corp. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Boston Scientific Corp.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

West Virginia Federal Jury Awards $3.27 Million Verdict against Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon

In another victory for plaintiffs against vaginal-mesh implant manufacturers, a federal jury in West Virginia found for the plaintiff Jo Huskey and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $3.27 million.  Jurors found that J&J defectively designed the Ethicon TVT-O sling and failed to properly warn doctors and patients the device could erode, subsequently damaging organs and causing pain.  The case was presided over by Judge Joseph Goodwin.  (Huskey v. Ethicon, 12-cv-05201, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston)).

Huskey, a physical therapy assistant from Illinois, was implanted with her Ethicon sling in 2011.  She had surgery to remove the device later that year after suffering pain.

Click here to read the full Bloomberg article: J&J Ordered to Pay $3.27 Million Over Mesh Implant

Ethicon TVT-O

TVT-O (transvaginal tape obturator)

The TVT-O (transvaginal tape obturator) is a polypropylene mesh hammock, sling or tape, designed to support the urethra and correct stress urinary incontinence (SUI).   Like the TVT (transvaginal tape), TVT-O is implanted through the vagina, but unlike the TVT which exits through the lower abdomen, the TVT-O has an exit point through the groin, making mesh injuries and mesh removal potentially harmful and injurious.  Both types of mesh hammocks are still on the market.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

On April 4, 2014, a Dallas jury found for the plaintiff Linda Batiste and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.2 million for its defective design of the Ethicon TVT-O pelvic mesh.

Two Massachusetts juries recently rejected women’s claims that Boston Scientific’s incontinence sling was defective designed and injured women.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson Inc.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Johnson & Johnson Inc. is not affiliated with this website, and Johnson & Johnson Inc. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Johnson & Johnson Inc.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Ford Recalls 83,250 2012-2014 Vehicles due to Improper Installation of the Halfshaft

2014 Ford Edge

2014 Ford Edge

Ford announced it would recall 83,250 vehicles involving an installation defect of the halfshaft retention circlip.  During the manufacturing of the affected vehicles, the halfshaft retention circlip may not have been properly installed as designed.  As a result, the halfshaft may move outward and disengage from the linkshaft while driving and without prior warning.

If the halfshaft and linkshaft become disengaged while driving, power will no longer be transmitted to the wheels, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.  Additionally, if the parking brake is not applied before exiting the vehicle, the vehicle may roll away despite the transmission being placed in ‘Park’, increasing the risk of injury to exiting occupants and bystanders.

Halfshaft

Click here to read the manufacturer notice: Manufacturer Notice – Ford Edge

The following vehicles and model years are affected by this recall:

  • 2012-2014 Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX vehicles manufactured September 2, 2010, to November 30, 2013
  • 2013-2014 Ford Taurus and Lincoln MKS vehicles manufactured August 25, 2011, to November 30, 2013
  • 2013-2014 Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT vehicles manufactured September 12, 2011, to November 30, 2013

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the vehicles to make sure that the halfshaft is properly retained.  If it is not, dealers will replace the linkshaft and also replace the halfshaft if it shows evidence of spline damage, free of charge.  The recall began on August 4, 2014.  Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673.  Ford’s number for this recall is 14S10.

Previously in May 2014, Ford recalled 1,176,771 vehicles in two separate actions due to air bag and door defects.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Ford is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Ford Motor Company is not affiliated with this website, and Ford Motor Company has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Ford Motor Company.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Chrysler Recalls Another 643,618 Vehicles due to Ignition Switch Defect

2006 Jeep Grande Cherokee

2006 Jeep Grande Cherokee

Last week, Chrysler expanded recall 11V-139 to include an additional 525,205 minivans due to an ignition switch defect.  This week, Chrysler has now added another 643,618 Jeeps suffering from the same ignition switch defect.

The issue is once again the ignition switch, which has been the topic of conversation of automobile recalls since GM’s bombshell back in February of this year.  In the affected vehicles, the driver may accidentally hit the ignition key with their knee, unintentionally knocking the key out of the run position, and turning off the engine.  If the key is turned into the off position, the vehicle will lose air bag, power steering and power braking capabilities, which increases the likelihood of a crash.

Chrysler is recalling their Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Commander models. Jeep Grand Cherokees are from the 2005-2007 model line and were manufactured from February 11, 2004, to July 5, 2007.  The Commander models were made from January 31, 2005, to July 5, 2007, and their model years are from 2006 and 2007.

Chrysler has warned all drivers of these vehicles that until this recall is performed, drivers should adjust their seat to allow clearance between the driver’s knee and the ignition key, and remove all items from their key ring, leaving only the vehicle key.

Parts are currently not available and the schedule of repairing the defect is still unknown.  Chrysler will notify owners in September 2014.  The remedy for this recall is still under development. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Chrysler’s number for this recall is P41.

Click here to read the defect notice: Chrysler Ignition Switch Defect

Nearly 40 million vehicles have been recalled in 2014 alone.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Chrysler is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Chrysler Group LLC is not affiliated with this website, and Chrysler Group LLC has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Chrysler Group LLC.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

BMW Recalls 573,935 Vehicles Due to a Passenger Side Air Bag Defect

2005 BMW M3

2005 BMW M3

BMW will recall 573,935 sedans, coupes, convertibles and Sports Wagons due to a defect in the passenger side air bag.  This is an expansion of BMW’s earlier recall back in April 2013.  The problem is to address a safety defect in the passenger side frontal air bag inflator.  The issue is the inflator may release excessive internal pressure that could cause the air bag inflator to rupture upon deployment of the air bag. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger’s frontal air bag, excessive internal pressure could cause rupturing of the inflator resulting in metal fragments striking and potentially seriously injuring the passenger seat occupant or other occupants.

Click here to read the defect notice: BMW Passenger Air Bag Defect

The vehicles involves in this recall include:

Model Year/Model                                                 Inclusive Dates of Manufacture

2000 – 2005 / 3 Series Sedan                                      Jun 1999 – Aug 2005

2000 – 2006 / 3 Series Coupe                                     Jun 1999 – Aug 2006

2000 – 2005 / 3 Series Sports Wagon                       Jan 2000 – Aug 2005

2000 – 2006 / 3 Series Convertible                           Dec 1999 – Aug 2006

2001 – 2006 / M3 Coupe                                              Feb 2001 – May 2006

2001 – 2006 / M3 Convertible                                    Mar 2001 – Aug 2006

Parts are currently not available to fix the defect.  BMW will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger side frontal air bag, free of charge. An interim notice will be mailed to owners in August 2014.  A second notice will be mailed when an adequate supply of parts is available, currently anticipated to be in October 2014.  Owners may contact BMW customer service at 1-800-525-7417 or email BMW at CustomerRelations@bmwusa.com.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

BMW is a registered trademark of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Bayerische Motoren Werke AG is not affiliated with this website, and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Tom Brandi Again Named to 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers Top Ten

 

Tom Brandi was named to the 2014 Top Ten Lawyers for Northern California for the second consecutive year.  Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.  According to Super Lawyers, “The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.”  Tom Brandi has been in the Top 100 every year since the inception of Super Lawyers and this is his third appearance in the Top Ten.

 

The complete list of Top Ten Lawyers for Northern California were:

Brandi, Thomas J.

Cabraser, Elizabeth J. (Ranked Number 3)

Cotchett, Joseph W. (Ranked Number 1)

Dermody, Kelly M.

Keker, John W. (Ranked Number 2)

Minami, Dale

Pitre, Frank M.

Sonsini, Lawrence W.

Van Nest, Robert A.

Watters, Richard C.

Top 10: 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers Top List

Dan Dell’Osso, who was Best Lawyers Trial Lawyer of the year in 2012, was once again named to the Super Lawyers list. In addition, Brian J. Malloy and Casey Kaufman were again named to the Rising Stars, which recognizes up and coming attorneys under 40.

From left to right, Daniel Dell’Osso, Casey Kaufman, Brian Malloy

For more information about our firm, visit our website.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers