CGLaw Pod

About CGLaw Pod

Welcome to CGLaw Pod, the podcast channel brought to you by CaseyGerry, the most established personal injury law firm in San Diego / Founded in 1947. Our podcast features a team of experienced personal injury attorneys who will share their knowledge and insights with our audience. Each episode will cover a different topic related to personal injury law, such as car accidents, medical malpractice, product liability, and more. Our attorneys will discuss their experiences representing clients, the challenges they faced, and the strategies they used to achieve successful outcomes. They will also provide thoughts on how to navigate the legal system and protect your rights if you or a loved one has been injured. At CGLaw Pod, we are committed to educating our audience about personal injury law and helping them understand their legal options. Whether you are a fellow attorney, a victim of negligence or simply interested in learning more about this area of law, our podcast is the perfect resource for you. Tune in to CGLaw Pod and join us in our mission to empower individuals and families with the knowledge and tools they need to seek justice and recover the compensation they deserve.

Publisher

CaseyGerry

Category

news

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

7 Jun 2023

Latest episode

27 Feb 2025

Latest episodes

19 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   27 Feb 2025

   Ganci Law Update: EP19 Understanding Court Decisions on Bad Faith Claims and Insurance Coverage Disputes

   In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci discusses several key legal cases and their implications, providing insight into the application of California law. Molinar v. 21st Century Insurance Co. (2024) Background: In this case, the parents and their daughter, all insured through 21st Century, faced a situation where the daughter caused a car crash. 21st Century denied coverage, arguing that the policy had been canceled before the accident. While they had sent the cancellation notice to the paren...

2. 

   20 Dec 2024

   Ganci Law Update: EP18 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: who can claim this and why?

   Attorney Eric Ganci explains how the California Supreme Court's Downey v. City of Riverside decision clarifies the standards for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in California.

3. 

   5 Aug 2024

   Ganci Law Update: EP17 Recent Court Decisions on Post-Graduation Student Status and Faculty Discipline

   In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci delves deep into two critical court cases that have caught the attention of the legal world. Balakrishnan v. Regents of the University of California Background: In 2017, an anonymous letter was published online, accusing a UCSC professor of a pattern of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault against young women and gender-nonconforming individuals. This letter included seven firsthand accounts of alleged abuse and called for the University to take action. Over 150 people signed the letter in support. Consequently, a Committee disciplined the professor according to the Faculty Code of Conduct. The professor argued against this disciplinary action. Key Question: Can a UCSC professor be justifiably disciplined under the Faculty Code of Conduct based on allegations of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault outlined in an anonymous letter, even if the professor contests the disciplinary action? The court ruled against the professor. It stated that the professor's conduct, which included an incident at a party, where he climbed naked and uninvited, into the bed of a female academic and rubbed his genitalia against her, created an unsafe environment and hindered the purpose and values of an academic institution. Additionally, the court upheld the University's finding that the professor's conduct towards Jane Doe at the party was subject to discipline under the Faculty Code of Conduct. Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc. Background: In this case, a regional center arranged for a developmentally disabled person to be placed in a residential facility. The facility later informed the regional center that it could no longer provide the required level of care to the individual. While the regional center was in the process of finding a different facility, the person attacked and injured the facility's administrator. The administrator sued the regional center for her injuries. Key Question: Does a regional center have a duty to protect the employees of a residential facility if it fails to immediately relocate a developmentally disabled person as requested by the facility? The court answered "No," stating that no such duty existed. The court further clarified that even if regulations suggest recognizing a duty to protect, this duty applies solely to the consumer (the developmentally disabled person) and not to the employees of the residential facility. The court emphasized that the relevant Act is concerned with the well-being of the consumer, not those who interact with the consumer. To learn more, please see the cases below: Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California, 2024 WL 371554. Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc. 2024 WL 277313 Learn more about Eric Ganci

4. 

   25 Jul 2024

   Ganci Law Update: EP16 Can you recover costs of depositions if the depositions did not actually occur?

   In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci delves into a recent California court decision that sheds light on whether prevailing parties can recover costs for depositions that were noticed but didn’t occur. Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC: Background: Consumers filed tort claims against a mattress retailer and manufacturer, alleging injuries from a sagging mattress. After settling with the retailer and dismissing claims against the manufacturer, Tempur-Pedic sought to recover deposition costs. Key Issue: Can the prevailing party recover costs for depositions that were noticed but didn’t take place? The court ruled that, under California Civil Code 1033.5, the prevailing party can recover costs for depositions as they are considered “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” This includes costs for depositions that were noticed but did not happen, as well as late cancellation fees. The court emphasized that the necessity of the depositions at the time they were noticed is key, regardless of whether they ultimately occurred. For more information: Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, 98 Cal.App.5th 819 Learn more about Eric Ganci

5. 

   2 Apr 2024

   Ganci Law Update: EP15 Gov't immunity and the word "use”

   In this episode of Ganci Law Update, we delve into recent legal decisions that explore various aspects of law, from government immunity to duty and academic discipline: Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District: Individuals involved in a car crash into a government canal sued the irrigation district, claiming the water level posed a dangerous condition. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Water District, citing "canal immunity." The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that since their interaction with the canal was unintentional (they did not mean to crash their car into it), canal immunity should not apply to them. Kinney v. City of Corona: This case involves the City's refusal to disclose information related to a stolen vehicle investigation, citing confidentiality concerns. Despite not delving into the case's intricate details, it emphasizes the relevance of the case to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 998 offers. It highlights two crucial legal principles regarding CCP 998 offers: first, such offers are interpreted strictly in favor of the party being subjected to them, and second, any ambiguity in such offers is strictly interpreted against the party making the offer. These principles serve as important reminders regarding the application and interpretation of CCP 998 offers in legal proceedings. Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc.: In this case, a regional center placed a developmentally disabled individual in a residential facility. When the facility couldn't continue care, the individual injured an employee while awaiting relocation. The court ruled the regional center didn't have a duty to protect facility employees. This highlights the legal distinction between duties owed to consumers and others in their orbit. Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California: A tenured professor faced disciplinary action for sexual assault incidents occurring after his student's graduation ceremony. Despite his objections, the court upheld the university's decision, citing his inappropriate behavior and the ongoing jurisdiction over the student involved. For more information: Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District, cited as 98 Cal.App.5th 793 Kinney v. City of Corona, cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 1 Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc., cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 139 Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California, cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 513 Learn more about Eric Ganci

6. 

   22 Dec 2023

   Ganci Law Update: EP14 Legal Perspectives: Premises Liability, Rainwater Hazards, and Professional Conduct in Recent Cases

   In this episode of Ganci Law Update, attorney Eric Ganci delves into three crucial legal cases: Stack v. City of Lemoore: Despite the plaintiff's prior safe use of the sidewalk, the court rejected the argument that individual familiarity with the area should affect the assessment of the dangerous condition. The court's decision delves into the legal complexities of premises liability, emphasizing the general foreseeability of harm over the plaintiff's specific history in determining liability. Nicoletti v. Kest: A resident slipped on a wet driveway during rain. Despite the plaintiff knowing the area well, the court ruled that the running rainwater was an obvious danger. This case highlights the significance of determining if a hazard is open and obvious, influencing the landowner's duty to provide warnings or address the condition. Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc.: A pivotal case addressing employee disability discrimination, where the court's decision included an award for attorney fees, subsequently reduced by 40%. This reduction was attributed to the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, highlighting the criticality of upholding professionalism in legal matters. The case serves as a significant reminder of the impact that decorum and civility have on the judicial process. For more information: Stack v. City of Lemoore, 91 Cal.App.5th 102 Nicoletti v. Kest, 2023 WL 7521740. Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc., 2023 WL 7014096 Learn more about Eric Ganci

7. 

   23 Oct 2023

   Ganci Law Update: EP13 Decisive Moments in Civil Laws: The Nuances of Settlements, Safety Duties, and Proof Sanction

   In this Ganci Law Update episode, attorney Eric Ganci examines three pivotal legal cases: Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge, Inc. (2023): explore the complex question of whether bars owe a duty of safety to their patrons. While the answer to this question is often "it depends," this case provides insights into the bar's responsibility in ensuring the safety of its customers. Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District (2023): raises questions about volunteers' legal recourse in personal injury versus worker’s compensation claims. Vargas v. Gallizzi (2023): addresses the issue of seeking costs for proving evidence after serving Requests for Admissions (RFAs). It explains the laws related to RFAs, including when cost-of-proof sanctions can be applied. For more information: Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge, Inc., 2023 WL 6438060 Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, 2023 WL 6474984 Vargas v. Gallizzi, 2023 WL 6781376 Learn more about Eric Ganci

8. 

   22 Sept 2023

   Ganci Law Update: EP12 Insights into Product Defect Cases and Government Claims: Recent California Legal Developments

   In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, attorney Eric Ganci delves into a range of intriguing legal cases, offering valuable insights and analysis: Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc. (2023): Traverse the maze of the design defect case, as what appeared as a minor design flaw spiraled into intricate legal quandaries and an unforeseen courtroom denouement. Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023): Spotlighting the Requests for Admissions' indispensable role, we dissect its influence when unanswered, particularly in wrongful death litigations. Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster) (2023): Navigate the complexities of responding to formal discovery requests in California's jurisdiction. What truly is the legal mandate when pinpointing specific documents in a reply? A.S. v. Palmdale School District (2023): Ascertain the crucial steps and potential pitfalls in presenting government claim forms, particularly when involving California's government institutions. For more information Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc. (2023) 2023 WL 4618687 Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023 WL 5344893) Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster) case (2023 WL 4861786) A.S. v. Palmdale School District (2023 WL 5524107) Join Eric Ganci on this episode of the Ganci Law Update to gain valuable legal insights into these intriguing cases and more. Learn more about Eric Ganci

9. 

   4 Aug 2023

   Ganci Law Update: EP11 Legal Nuances and Boundaries: Delving into Personal Service and Family Rights in California Litigation

   In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses rights and limitations in filing a lawsuit against another party. Ganci explores several recent judgments to address this. In Braugh v. Dow, 2023 WL 4312617, he discusses California law as it pertains to the following question: Can you personally serve the summons and complaint if you are a party to the lawsuit? Touching on another recent case, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 2023 WL 4360826, Ganci discusses California law as it pertains to the rights and restrictions of family members to file lawsuits against an individual's employer. He presents two issues: If any employee contracts COVID 19 and brings it home to their spouse, does California law bar the spouse' s negligence claim against the employer? Does an employer owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID 19 to employees' households? Listen to learn more: Braugh v. Dow, 2023 WL 4312617 Wong v. Stillwater Insurance Company (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 908 Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 2023 WL 4360826 Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School District, 2023 WL 4308622 Learn more about Eric Ganci

10. 

    4 Aug 2023

    Ganci Law Update: EP10 Legal Perspectives on Design Immunity: Analyzing Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verde

    Sometimes courts disagree on how to read and interpret the law. CaseyGerry attorney, Eric Ganci explores the decision in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, where the Supreme court steps in to settle a disagreement between two lower courts on whether a design immunity claim against a public government agency can preclude a decision for seeking a claim when a government has failed to warn of a dangerous situation. This raises the question: Does design immunity bar all claims that seek to impose liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous feature of a roadway? Listen to learn more: Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318 Weinstein v. Department of Transportation (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 52 California Government Code section 830.6 California Government Code section 835 Bebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC, cited as of 6/14/23 as 2023 WL 3837260 Miranda v. Bomel Construction Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1326 Sarti v. Salt Creek (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187 CACI 400 CACI 430 Paige v. Safeway, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1108 California Evidence Code section 721(b) Learn more about Eric Ganci

11. 

    4 Aug 2023

    Ganci Law Update: EP9 Neuropsychological Assessments in Litigation: A Discussion Around the Randy’s Trucking Case

    In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry trial attorney Eric Ganci discusses Brain injury cases touching on the recent case - Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (Buttram) 2023 WL 3530705. In a Traumatic Brain Injury case, both sides will usually hire experts examine or prove that claim. However, in preliminary testing, neuropsychologists may have the option of not disclosing the results of the preliminary tests, which can cause an issue if the expert is not ethical in their testing and may further present a problem if the expert testifies in court. Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (Buttram) 2023 WL 3530705 Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249 Roe v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 138 CCP § 2032.530 CCP § 2032.610 Downey v. City of Riverside (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1033 Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 Pabla v. Superior Court (Dual Arch International) (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 599 Isaak v. Superior Court (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 792 Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 292 California Civil Code § 1714(a) Learn more about Eric Ganci

12. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP3: Motions For Summary Judgements: Can You Address An Issue That Is Not Raised In Your MSJ Papers

    Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 694 This podcast discusses the case, Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2020) to address the question: What happens when you file your trial papers, show up for your day in court and get hit with a curve ball? The judge presents a new item that you were not aware of, an issue that no party raised and shouldn't need to be decided on that court date and expects you to address it. Learn more about Eric Ganci

13. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP7: How Depositions Can Be Used If A Party Is Unavailable For Trial?

    In this installment of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses depositions and how a 2022 decision influences how depositions can be used if a party is unavailable for trial. Using the recent 2022 decision in Berroteran II v. Superior Court, Ganci examines the question - can a prior deposition be used as evidence if a party is unavailable for trial. Prior deposition transcripts, otherwise heresay, can be admissible as evidence if the following criteria are met: The party is unavailable. The opposing party was party to a prior litigation. The opposing party had opportunity to cross-examine with a similar motive and interest. Learn more about Eric Ganci

14. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP4: CCP998 Offers A Powerful Tool IF YOU KNOW THE RULES!

    Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 614 CSAA Insurance Exchange v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 272 This case decision is a technical one. Specifically on 998 those offers must be drafted to be accepted. First, what is a 998 Offer? A CCP998 offer is one made before a case goes to trial to settle at a certain amount. If a 998 is offered but not accepted, it sets the bar for what a verdict must be over or under at trial. When a defendant provides a 998 offer to the plaintiff. The written offer must include a provision for the opposing team to accept, for it to be accepted. In this case, the defendant's offer did not specify how the plaintiff team should be accepted. Learn more about Eric Ganci

15. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP8: How the Law Determines if Punitive Damages are Excessive

    In this episode, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses how the law determines if punitive damages are excessive. If a person has acted negligently or improperly and has harmed someone else as a result, California law sometimes allows the plaintiff to seek punitive damages in addition to compensation. Delving into the recent 2022 case, Doe v. Lee, Ganci explores when a verdict for punitive damages is excessive in the eyes of the law. The law provides three factors to determine if a verdict is excessive: The reprehensibility of the defendant's action. The harm suffered by the plaintiff in correlation to the punitive damages sought. The wealth of the defendant. Doe v. Lee (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 612 Simonyan v. Nationwide (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 889 Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 573 California Code of Civil Procedure 2860 California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b), Comment 4 Learn more about Eric Ganci

16. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP6: When Can You File A Demand To Settle Against The Other Party?

    Covert v. FCA USA, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 821 Segal v. ASICS (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 Timing is crucial in serving a demand to settle against another party in a civil lawsuit. Firstly, is there an advantage for plaintiff to offer defendant a settlement offer? The answer is - yes...if the timing is right. In this podcast, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci discusses the importance of timing in filing a demand to settle, touching on the recent decision in Covert v. FCA USA, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 821 to provide insight on when to serve a demand. Learn more about Eric Ganci

17. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP5: Is Jogging A Recreational Activity And How Does This Distinction Pertain To Premises Liability?

    If you injure yourself while jogging on someone's property, is the property owner liable for negligence? In this installment, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci explores this question referencing a recent judgement in  Rucker v. WINCAL, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 883. According to the California civil code 846 (A) - "An owner owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry others for entry or use for any recreational purpose, or to give warning of hazardous conditions to persons entering for recreational purposes. However, exceptions apply." The question remains - How is recreational purposes defined in this context? Rucker v. WINCAL, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 883 Kaney v. Mazza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 201 Finlan v. Chase (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 934 Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 280 Shalabi v. Fontana (2021) 11 Cal.5th 842 Learn more about Eric Ganci

18. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP2: Raising The Question About Qualified Immunity and Law Enforcement

    Villanueva v. California (2021) 986 F.3d 1158 In this week's podcast, CaseyGerry attorney Eric Ganci explores the growing number of police shootings and use of deadly force, raising questions about if police are protected under the law, focusing on Qualified Immunity and how, and if it protects law enforcement in cases of deadly shootings. Villanueva was involved in a car chase and was stopped by police officers. The officers immediately exited their vehicles and pulled out their firearms. Villanueva attempted to reverse his car, at which the officers opened fire on the vehicle. The shots killed Villanueva and injured his passenger. The law presented here explores the 4th amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures. Learn more about Eric Ganci

19. 

    7 Jun 2023

    The Ganci Law Update - EP1: Pilot - Introduction

    In this introductory episode, CaseyGerry trial attorney, Eric Ganci talks about his work at the firm and gives an overview of what the listeners can expect from this podcast. Welcome to CGLaw Pod! Learn more about Eric Ganci

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

YouTube views

27,513

Score snapshot 15 Sept 2025

Spotify

5.0 / 5

1 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 31 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

10

Social presence

0

YouTube

72

Engagement

60

Contact CGLaw Pod

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.