Tag: 2025 News

Scott Eskra was employed by AF Builders, Inc., when he was struck and killed by a falling tree on March 7, 2018. He was survived by his biological daughter, Ariana Eskra, then a minor, and his wife, Brandy Eskra. Also living in his household were Brandy’s two children from a prior relationship: Jovie Fischer, who was nine years old and living with Scott and Brandy approximately 20 to 23 days per month, and Austin Evenson, who had graduated high school and joined the Marine Corps but still maintained a room at the family home.

Nearly five years after Scott’s death, Ariana Eskra filed an application for death benefits. Brandy Eskra was later joined as an applicant, followed by Jovie Fischer and Austin Evenson. The case required three separate trials to resolve preliminary issues — including statute of limitations questions, evidentiary disputes over a premarital agreement, and the need for additional financial records — before the dependency determinations could be made.

At trial, the evidence established that Brandy Eskra earned approximately $14,000 per year working two to two-and-a-half days per week as a hairdresser. Coworkers at the same salon corroborated that she could not have earned $30,000 per year. Scott Eskra had paid for housing, food, utilities, and other household expenses. Jovie Fischer’s biological father had been paying child support until late 2017, and a court-ordered support obligation was issued in December 2017. Austin Evenson was earning roughly $800 every two weeks in the Marine Corps but received occasional financial support from Scott, including gas money, hunting trip expenses, and a plane ticket to visit.

The WCJ issued findings on February 13, 2026, ruling that Brandy Eskra was a presumptive total dependent under Labor Code section 3501(b), which creates a conclusive presumption of total dependency for a surviving spouse who earned $30,000 or less in the twelve months before the employee’s death. The WCJ found that both Jovie Fischer and Austin Evenson were partial dependents, reasoning that Jovie did not qualify for the conclusive presumption under section 3501(a) because she was not Scott Eskra’s biological or adopted child, and because she had other sources of support including her biological father’s child support payments.

The WCAB denied Ariana Eskra’s petition for reconsideration and granted Brandy Eskra’s petition in the panel decision of Eskra v. AF Builders, Inc., – ADJ17262790 (May 2026). The Board affirmed the WCJ’s findings in all respects except one: it amended the decision to find that Jovie Fischer was a presumptive total dependent under Labor Code section 3501(a), not merely a partial dependent. The finding regarding Austin Evenson as a partial dependent was affirmed. Commissioner Razo dissented.

On Brandy Eskra’s total dependency, the Board upheld the WCJ’s finding without difficulty. The unrebutted evidence — Brandy’s own testimony, corroborating testimony from two coworkers, and the 2017 tax return showing gross income of $20,695 — established that she earned well under $30,000 in the year before Scott’s death. The Board rejected Ariana Eskra’s challenge to the tax return’s admission, noting that the WCJ had relied on both documentary evidence and consistent testimony from multiple witnesses.

On the premarital agreement, the Board affirmed its exclusion. The death benefits claim did not exist at the time the agreement was signed, the claim was not the decedent’s property to dispose of, and in any event workers’ compensation benefits cannot be released without a WCJ’s order approving and finding adequacy of consideration — none of which occurred here.

On Jovie Fischer’s dependency status, the Board broke from the WCJ. The central question was whether a non-biological, unadopted child living in the decedent’s household qualifies as a “child” under section 3501(a), which creates a conclusive presumption of total dependency for a child under 18 living with a deceased employee-parent at the time of injury.

Following its own reasoning in the panel decision Franco, dec’d v. Orange County Plastering Co., Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 258 (Appeals Board Panel Decision, July 14, 2025), the Board held that the plain and ordinary meaning of “child” includes stepchildren. The Board drew support from section 3503, which lists stepchildren among those who may qualify as dependents, and from section 3202, which mandates liberal construction of workers’ compensation law to extend benefits to injured workers and their dependents.

The Board also cited State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Asher) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1645, which applied similar reasoning to conclude that minor grandchildren are entitled to extended death benefits. Because Jovie was living with the decedent at the time of his fatal injury, section 3501(a) applied regardless of whether she sometimes visited her biological father or whether that father paid child support.

On Austin Evenson, the Board agreed with the WCJ that he was a partial dependent. Although Austin was a good-faith member of the household under section 3503 and received some financial support from the decedent, he was over 18 and earning his own income in the Marine Corps, so the conclusive presumption of section 3501(a) did not apply. The exact amount of his dependency was deferred.

Commissioner Razo dissented on the Jovie Fischer issue, adopting the WCJ’s reasoning. He emphasized that Jovie was not living full-time with the decedent and that her biological father was paying child support, making a finding of total dependency inappropriate in his view. He would have left the WCJ’s partial dependency finding in place.

Eleven candidates are running in the top-two primary for insurance commissioner of California on June 2, 2026. Five have led in media attention: Stacy Korsgaden (R), Ben Allen (D), Steven Bradford (D), Jane Kim (D), and Patrick Wolff (D). Incumbent Ricardo Lara (D) is term-limited and is retiring from public office.

Stacy Korsgaden has warned she would crack down on insurance fraud and conduct a full audit of the California Department of Insurance if elected. Korsgaden is a licensed insurance professional (License #0750748) since 1988, small business owner, and lifelong Californian. And according to a report by the New York Post “[t]he reason that I’m running is that we have a situation that I cannot sit back anymore and watch, the inexperience in the policies that are being implemented throughout the state. That’s why I’m getting involved,” she said during a town hall in Tuolumne County.

Ben Allen is currently sitting on the California Senate. Allen wrote on his official candidate statement “I have a long track record of success working for the public interest: In the State Senate, I’ve taken on insurance industry lobbyists, passed some of the nation’s strongest consumer protection laws, and led efforts to invest $10 billion in wildfire prevention, water infrastructure improvements, and climate resilience. As Insurance Commissioner, my #1 priority will be putting consumers first. That means: Holding polluters accountable: I’ll make corporate polluters financially responsible for climate damages that drive up insurance costs.”

Allen is frequently described as a strong contender or frontrunner. He has significant fundraising (~$1.5M+ raised), high-profile endorsements (e.g., Adam Schiff), and experience in wildfire-affected areas. Recent endorsements (e.g., from newspapers) position him as a top choice.

Steven Bradford is a former State Senator where he sat on the State Legislature’s Insurance Committee where he helped build consensus on complex regulatory challenges. His plan “includes bringing transparency to insurance pricing, rewarding people who protect their homes, rebuilding the insurance market in high risk areas, and making rates make sense. Bradford will support safer moves for the most at-risk, modernize the Department of Insurance, and put equity front and center.”

Jane Kim is a civil rights attorney, organizer and consumer advocate. “As Insurance Commissioner, I’ll cap excessive profits and freeze your rates when you file a claim. I’ll create a public Disaster Insurance for All program so we are protected when fires, floods or earthquakes strike. I’ll crack down on illegal price-fixing, stop insurers from using credit scores to deny coverage, and fight for guaranteed healthcare for every child in California.” Kim is backed by progressives (e.g., Bernie Sanders ties via Working Families Party)

Patrick Wolff wrote that “[f]rom 2001–2005, I worked at a major bank where I built a home and auto ins urance brokerage. Since 2005, I have worked as a financial analyst where, among other sectors, I analyzed insurance markets and companies.” According to his website “I have a plan to solve our state’s insurance crisis by holding insurance companies accountable, increasing choice and competition, and improving transparency.”

Lower profile candidates include Republican Sean Lee.  Lee conducted scientific research at JPL / NASA through Caltech, developing a disciplined, data-driven approach to analyzing complex problems. He later applied those analytical skills in the insurance and financial services industries. He supports transparency, accountability, and effective oversight of insurance practices. Lee also supports the responsible use of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and lnsurTech, to improve efficiency and combat fraud.

Republican Robert P Howell unsuccessfully competed for Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. He has been the CEO of a Silicon Valley cybersecurity manufacturing company. He wrote ” I will hold insurance companies accountable to the rules and challenge abusive practices. I will implement an “Insurance Payers Bill of Rights” to protect policyholders from unfair cancellations and unjustified rate increases.”

Eduardo “Lalo” Vargas is the Peace and Freedom party candidate. He wrote “I pledge to freeze insurance rates and lower premiums, to investigate and hold insurance executives accountable for exploitative claim procedures, and to fight for a public insurance system that guarantees full and fair coverage for all.”

Republican candidate Merritt Farren is a California wildfire survivor, former Amazon lawyer, and former head of legal, guest claims, and security operations for the Disneyland Resort. He wrote ” I want to bring the customer-centric innovation I’ve learned to California insurance regulation.”

Keith Davis (American Independent) and Eric Aarnio do not have candidate statements on the official ballot. Both are lower-profile candidates compared to the leading Democrats and more prominent Republicans. Davis is an insurance agent from Riverside California. He emphasizes being a consumer advocate rather than aligned with big insurance companies. He has a campaign website (gokeithdavis.com) and has been active in interviews and outreach.

Eric Aarnio is a Republican, and a contractor from Sacramento with no prior elected office or formal insurance industry background. He has a very low-profile campaign (no website or social media listed in questionnaires) and minimal media presence.

Nick Miletak was hired to participate in Royal Coach Tours’ student driver trainee program. On the day formal classroom instruction was set to begin, Miletak showed up, handed in his resignation, and demanded compensation for time he had been available before the formal training started. Royal Coach refused but still paid him for 11 hours of classroom time he had logged during informal training.

About a week after resigning, Miletak filed a civil lawsuit against Royal Coach alleging five causes of action. After Royal Coach demurred, Miletak filed an amended complaint asserting two claims: promissory estoppel and constructive discharge. Following a court trial, judgment was entered in Royal Coach’s favor. Miletak appealed, and the Sixth District affirmed. Royal Coach then sued Miletak for malicious prosecution.

A bench trial was held on the malicious prosecution claim without a court reporter present. The trial court issued a statement of decision finding that Miletak’s prior employment action had terminated in Royal Coach’s favor, that Miletak lacked probable cause to bring the claims, that he pursued the action with malice, and that Royal Coach suffered damages. The court awarded Royal Coach $257,197.53, including punitive damages.

Miletak subsequently filed motions for a new trial, to dismiss, and to vacate the judgment. The trial court denied each one.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety in the unpublished case of Royal Coach Tours, Inc. v. Miletak, -H052687 (May 2026). Miletak raised thirteen separate contentions on appeal; the court rejected all of them.

Miletak appealed in pro per. The court’s analysis was shaped throughout by Miletak’s repeated failure to meet basic appellate requirements — providing adequate record citations, presenting developed legal arguments, and confining his claims to matters in the record. The court invoked the principle from Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609, that the burden falls on the appellant to demonstrate error on the basis of the record presented.

On personal jurisdiction, Miletak argued the trial court lost jurisdiction when he relocated to Florida. The court held that once a trial court acquires jurisdiction over a party, that jurisdiction continues to final judgment and is not defeated by the party’s relocation, citing Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 255, 263–264. Miletak’s reliance on Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117 was misplaced because that case addressed an entirely different question about claims by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant.

On the absence of a court reporter, Miletak claimed he requested one at trial. But the settled statement, the order denying his new trial motion, and the trial court’s own statements at the settled statement hearing all indicated that no such request was made. Without record evidence of a request, the court found no error.

On the denial of a jury trial, the record showed Miletak failed to timely request a jury or demonstrate that his partial fee waiver covered jury fees. The court applied TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, which holds that a litigant challenging the denial of relief from a jury waiver for the first time on appeal must show prejudice — something Miletak never attempted.

On probable cause, the central substantive issue, Miletak argued that the denial of Royal Coach’s nonsuit motion in the underlying employment action conclusively established probable cause under the interim adverse judgment rule. The court disagreed. Drawing on Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767 and Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, the court explained that the interim adverse judgment rule applies only to rulings on the merits, not those resting on procedural or technical grounds. Here, the nonsuit motion was denied based on Miletak’s opening statement — before any evidence was presented — so the denial said nothing about the substantive merits of his promissory estoppel claim.

The court also noted that Miletak attributed a fabricated quotation to Parrish, claiming that probable cause for any single claim insulates the entire suit. The California Supreme Court has held precisely the opposite: a malicious prosecution suit may be maintained where even one of several claims in the prior action lacked probable cause. See Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 671.

On the remaining issues — evidentiary rulings, judicial bias, fraud on the court, the settled statement, denial of writ petitions, and the prior anti-SLAPP appeal — the court found each contention either unsupported by record citations, procedurally forfeited, or substantively without merit. Multiple claims were deemed waived under Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856, for failure to cite the record.

Kay Marie Gibbs worked as a court reporter for the Humboldt County Superior Court for nearly 40 years, starting in June 1982. She became eligible for enrollment in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) in December 1983, but the county did not enroll her until November 1989 — a gap of roughly six years.

When Gibbs began preparing for retirement in 2019, she discovered she would not receive CalPERS service credit for those early years. CalPERS told her it could not adjust her benefits without a certification from the county of her full employment history. What followed was a prolonged and fruitless effort to get the county to produce those records. Gibbs alleged that three individual employees in the county’s human resources department lost, destroyed, or failed to search for the requested records. After repeated promises, the county eventually sent CalPERS an incomplete compilation that was missing records for multiple periods spanning from 1982 to 1989.

Gibbs attempted to mitigate the damage by purchasing “prior service credit,” but she could not do so without the county’s certification of her employment history. She alleged she was forced to delay retirement and stood to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.

Gibbs filed suit asserting four causes of action under Government Code section 815.6, each based on the county’s alleged failure to discharge a mandatory statutory duty — specifically, duties to maintain CalPERS-related records, allow inspection of personnel records, timely enroll her in CalPERS, and properly maintain employment information. She also asserted a fifth cause of action for negligence against all defendants.

The trial court sustained the county’s demurrers to all four statutory causes of action without leave to amend. It allowed Gibbs to amend only the negligence claim. She filed a second amended complaint focused on negligence, but the court sustained the demurrer to that claim as well, concluding that no statutory authority supported the duties Gibbs alleged. The court suggested that “a simple mandamus will suffice” if Gibbs wanted to review withheld records.

The First District Court of Appeal largely reversed in the partially published case of Gibbs v. County of Humboldt et al., -A173637 (May 2026). It found the trial court’s result “untenable” — that Gibbs, who alleged the county failed to enroll her in CalPERS through no fault of her own, was left without a claim because the county also lost her records through no fault of hers.

The court reversed on three of Gibbs’s causes of action. It affirmed on only one — the fourth cause of action under Government Code sections 26205 and 26205.1, which the court found authorizes destruction of certain records rather than mandating their retention.

On the personnel records claim, the court held that Government Code section 31011 and Labor Code section 1198.5 impose mandatory, nondiscretionary duties on public employers to let employees inspect their personnel records and to maintain those records for at least three years after employment ends. The court rejected the county’s argument that the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (TCEPGA), which transferred court employees from county to court employment effective January 1, 2004, extinguished its obligations. Gibbs was never terminated — she continued the same work — and the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), Government Code § 20000 et seq., itself, provides that a contracting agency’s obligations “continue through the memberships of the respective members.” (Gov. Code, § 20164, subd. (a).) The court was guided by Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Medical Center (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 198, which found a private right of action under similar record-inspection statutes.

On the failure to enroll claim, the court held that the PERL imposes a mandatory duty on contracting agencies to timely enroll employees in CalPERS, pointing to sections 20283, 20502, 20281, and 20028. The Supreme Court had already recognized a “duty to enroll employees in CalPERS” in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 491, 506. Reading the enrollment obligation as discretionary, the court said, would render the statutes’ benefits “illusory,” citing Henderson v. Newport-Mesa Unified School Dist. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 478, 494–495.

On the negligence claim, in the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court concluded that Gibbs stated a viable claim against the individual defendants for breaching their duties of care, and the county could be held vicariously liable under Government Code section 815.2. The court rejected the defendants’ invocations of discretionary-act immunity (§ 820.2) and the economic loss rule, finding neither applicable.

The court also rejected the argument that mandamus was Gibbs’s exclusive remedy, distinguishing Crumpler v. Board of Administration (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 567 and Metropolitan, neither of which held that a writ is the only available path when an employee was wrongfully denied CalPERS enrollment.

Plaintiff Lawyers are now calling the RICO cases filed in several states, including California, by employers against plaintiff lawfirms for filing alleged exaggerated claims a “Very Dangerous Trend.” Ostensibly, this “trend” became of interest recently when Uber Technologies, Inc. filed three racketeering lawsuits recently against lawyers and medical providers for alleged fraudulent insurance claims, with a California lawsuit against Downtown LA Law Group et al.being the third.

The the first was filed in New York in 2025 targeting a group of lawyers and medical providers in New York for allegedly exploiting Uber’s state-mandated $1 million rideshare insurance policy to file fraudulent personal injury claims. The scheme allegedly involved directing claimants to pre-selected medical providers who produced fraudulent medical records and bills to inflate settlement demands.

The second was filed in South Florida (Uber v. Law Group of South Florida et al., Case No. 25-cv-22635-CMA) and Uber accused the defendants of staging car accidents, manufacturing damages, and pursuing unnecessary medical procedures to exploit insurance policies between 2023 and 2024.

Uber Technologies filed another lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging a fraudulent scheme involving personal injury claims filed against them in California. The complaint alleges that this “scheme begins when Defendants (Igor) Fradkin, Downtown LA Law Group, Emrani, and Law Offices of Jacob Emrani identify individuals with potential personal injury claims against rideshare companies such as Uber.” And goes on to allege “Both firms aggressively pursue clients to sue Uber, as shown in this online advertisement by Emrani” which appears to be screen grab of an advertisement showing Jacob Emrani next to an UBER/Lyft logo above the words “Uber or Lyft Accident?” followed by a banner that reads “Call Jacob.com.”

Uber then alleges that a “key repeat participant in this fraud is Defendant Greg Khounganian, a spinal surgeon who owns and controls GSK Spine, an orthopedics practice. Working with personal injury coordinators at Defendant Radiance Surgery Center, a surgery center which specializes in treating patients with pending personal injury lawsuits and which also does business as Sherman Oaks Surgery Center.

Following these three RICO cases, there were more to come, with Federal Express joining as a plaintiff, when Uber Technologies and Federal Express sued Philadelphia personal injury attorney Marc Simon, his firm Simon & Simon P.C., and several medical professionals — chiropractors Ethel Harvey and Daniel Piccillo of Philadelphia Spine Associates, pain management physician Clifton Burt of Premier Pain & Rehab Center, and medical examiner Lance Yarus — under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The companies alleged the defendants ran a coordinated fraud scheme spanning dozens of lawsuits filed over the past four years in Philadelphia County courts.

According to the complaint, the scheme worked like a conveyor belt. Simon & Simon would sign up clients involved in motor vehicle accidents with Uber or FedEx drivers — clients who typically suffered minimal or no injuries and often carried limited-tort insurance. The firm then directed those clients to the same small group of medical providers. Drs. Harvey and Piccillo administered extensive chiropractic treatments and ordered MRIs that came back negative or showed only mild degenerative changes unrelated to the accidents. Despite those results, the chiropractors continued treatment at the lawyers’ direction, generating voluminous records that in some cases reflected care that was allegedly never actually delivered or was documented using cut-and-paste boilerplate.

On May 11, 2026 the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety in the case of Uber Technologies v. Simon & Simon P.C., Case No. 25-5365 (E.D. Pa.) (May 2026)  allowing all of Uber’s RICO claims to proceed to discovery. Every defense raised — Noerr-Pennington immunity, res judicata, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and challenges to the sufficiency of the RICO allegations — was rejected at this stage.

Noerr-Pennington immunity is a common defense raised in these cases. The defendants argue their conduct was protected petitioning activity under the First Amendment. The Philadelphia court acknowledged that filing and serving lawsuits is classic petitioning activity, but held the alleged pre-filing conduct — directing doctors to create false medical records and manufacture evidence — was not “incidental” to petitioning.

Even assuming the conduct could qualify as petitioning, the court found Uber plausibly invoked the sham litigation exception. Under the series-of-petitions framework from California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), the allegations supported an inference the lawyers filed cases without regard to merit and to extract settlement value through the litigation process itself. The abrupt dismissal of claims once discovery threatened to expose the scheme was particularly telling.

Ford Motor Company v. Knight Law Group LLP et al., 2:25-cv-04550, was filed May 21, 2025 in the Central District of California. Plaintiff alleged that attorneys with Knight Law Group, Altman Law Group, and Wirtz Law APC submitted thousands of fictitious time entries in Lemon Law cases over the past decade to extract more than $100 million in inflated legal fees. The legal hook is California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the state’s Lemon Law), which is fee-shifting — prevailing consumer plaintiffs recover their attorneys’ fees from the manufacturer.

Ford’s audit allegedly identified 34 days in which a lawyer claimed more than 24 hours of work and 66 entries showing over 20 hours in a single day, including one entry for “an ostensibly heroic but physically impossible 57.5-hour workday in November 2016.” Ford also cited instances where attorneys billed for multiple full-day depositions in different locations on the same day.

On November 24, 2025 the court granted Knight’s motions to dismiss with leave to amend. The dismissal turned on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine — the First Amendment-rooted rule shielding petitioning activity from liability. The court reasoned that Ford was attempting to impose RICO liability “for conduct connected to Defendants’ fee petitions,” and that a successful RICO claim would “quite plainly” burden defendants’ ability to seek fees for their litigation activity, since seeking fees is at least “incidental to the prosecution of the suit”. This is the same doctrinal wall the Gori firm is now invoking against J-M, and the same wall that defeated parts of J-M’s earlier suit against Simmons Hanly Conroy.

Ford did not appeal; it pivoted. In an amended complaint filed January 5, 2026, Ford withdrew its RICO claims against Knight Law Group as an entity, along with Altman Law Group, Wirtz Law APC, and several attorneys and a former paralegal, and instead strengthened its case against three individual attorneys formerly associated with Knight Law — founding partner Steve B. Mikhov, managing partner Roger Kirnos, and partner Amy Morse — alleging perjury and obstruction of justice for submitting false statements to courts about how legal fee records were created.

And another case recently filed case by a California employer adds asbestos claims instead of Uber type automobile type litigation. J-M Manufacturing (the Los Angeles-based pipe maker that does business as JM Eagle) filed its federal RICO complaint against The Gori Law Firm on January 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, asserting claims under RICO along with common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. It’s based on information from a “whistleblower” attorney who formerly worked at the Gori firm.

J-M accuses the Gori firm of establishing a “bounty” system since at least 2018, in which “depo attorneys” who took clients’ depositions could earn up to 2% of total settlement proceeds if they successfully coached clients to testify they were exposed to J-M’s (and other companies’) products. The complaint alleges depo attorneys were trained to tell plaintiffs that even if they couldn’t recall the products, “the Gori Firm had done lots of research, and based on their research, the plaintiff was exposed to the products of the defendants recommended for inclusion by the attorney” Gori named J-M in more than 400 asbestos lawsuits since 2018, mostly in Madison and St. Clair counties in southern Illinois.