Biography

Los Angeles-based attorney Douglas J. Collodel has broad experience working with major corporations and public entities handling civil litigation matters in state and federal courts. He concentrates his practice on all aspects of appellate law, and has been certified by The State Bar of California Office of Legal Specialization as an Appellate Law Specialist.

Mr. Collodel has briefed and argued numerous cases involving, among other issues, healthcare matters, federal preemption issues, constitutional questions, civil rights violations, government tort claims, business torts, insurance coverage, and general liability disputes. He has participated in proceedings before the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, California Supreme Court and California Court of Appeal, and has more than 30 published decisions.

Litigation Matters

• Water Replenishment Dist. of Southern California v. City of Cerritos, B226743, – Cal.App.4th – (2012)
• Lopez v. Nissan North America, Inc., 201 Cal.App.4th 572 (2011)
• Hillside Memorial Park & Mortuary v. Golden State Water Co., 199 Cal.App.4th 658; 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 146 (2011) – currently under review by California Supreme Court
• PacifiCare of Cal. v. Bright Medical Associates, Inc., 198 Cal.App.4th 1451, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 756 (2011)
• Martin v. PacifiCare of California, 198 Cal.App.4th 1390, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 714 (2011)
• United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 10-3472, – F.3d – (8th Cir. 2011)
• Howard v. Crim. Info. Servs., 654 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2011)
• Hyundai Motor America v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 600 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010)
• Cotton v. Starcare Medical Group, Inc., 183 Cal.App.4th 437, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 767 (2010)
• Dupree v. Holman Professional Counseling Centers, 572 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2009)
• Nicholls v. Holiday Panay Marina, L.P., 173 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal.Ct.App. 2009)—First appellate decision nationally to address whether marina was a public accommodation under Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Chinese Yellow Pages Co. v. Chinese Overseas Marketing Service Corp., 170 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal.Ct.App. 2008)—Determining post-bankruptcy rights of a judgment creditor, including entitlement to recovery under  California law of attorney fees and costs incurred in the bankruptcy proceeding.
• GGIS Ins. Services, Inc. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1493 (Cal.Ct.App. 2008)—Concluding that insurance policy exclusion eliminated any duty to defend or indemnify claims based on the failure to pay any money; following writ proceeding, trial court entered judgment for insurer.
• Robson v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, 142 Cal.App.4th 877 (Cal.Ct.App.2006)—Case of first impression determining when appointed government officials must stand for election to office.
• Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 460 (2005)—Holding California’s minimum wage law is governed by a “per hour” analysis rather than under the federal law "averaging" method.
• In re Vaccine Cases, 134 Cal.App.4th 438, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 (Cal.Ct.App. 2005)—Affirming judgment after trial court sustained demurrer to Proposition 65 and Unfair Competition Law complaint alleging vaccine manufacturers failed to warn consumers of exposure to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in certain vaccines.  The appellate court found the manufacturers satisfied all statutory requirements by providing the standard warnings, which were approved under federal law, to the physicians who administered the vaccines.
• Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.App.4th 1155, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355 (2005)—Punitive damages sought in a civil lawsuit brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, which revived the statute of limitations on otherwise barred tort claims for childhood sexual abuse, do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States and California Constitutions.
• Hydro-Mill Co., Inc. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp Ins. Associates, Inc., 115 Cal.App.4th 1145 (Cal.Ct.App. 2004)—Reversing million-dollar judgment and directing judgment in favor of insurance brokers on insured's professional negligence claim arising out of broker's alleged failure to procure amount of insurance coverage requested.
• Cook v. Caterpillar Inc., No. A094080 (Cal.Ct.App. 2002)—Affirming summary judgment entered against welder who was severely burned during on-site repair of construction equipment.
• Caterpillar Inc. v. Superior Court, No. E031349 (Cal.Ct.App. 2002)—Writ of mandate issued directing trial court to vacate order denying motion for good faith settlement and enter order granting the motion.
• Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc)—Ninth Circuit addresses responsibility for environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA, including resolution of "disposal" in the context of active/passive migration of contaminants
• Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 1282, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 619 (2000) —In unfair competition action, Court of Appeal issues writ relief compelling trial court to uphold non-party’s written objections to a deposition subpoena; non-party petitioner had properly preserved its right to object and did not need to file motion to quash the subpoena.
• Shipman v. Boething Treeland Farms, Inc., 77 Cal.App.4th 1424 (Cal.Ct.App. 2000)— Judgment for property owner affirmed in novel case applying recreational use immunity to allegations of landowner's allegedly active negligence.
• Fisch v. United Spancrete, No. B122481 (Cal.Ct.App. 1999)— Affirming dismissal of case against foreign defendant based on motion to quash service of summons.
• Felix v. City of Burbank, No. 97-56461 (9th Cir. 1999)—Affirmed judgment against employee who asserted disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Artiglio v. Corning, Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 604 (Cal. Supreme Court 1998)—Affirmed grant of summary judgment for manufacturer on more than 200 breast implant cases because plaintiffs did not meet the standard for duty under their negligent undertaking theory, which was based on Restatement Second of Torts section 324A.  The Supreme Court determined that the manufacturer's toxicology research, which was conducted for one of its subsidiaries, did not create a duty to third parties who years later used a medical product manufactured by the subsidiary that was unrelated to the toxicology testing.
• City of Burbank v. Superior Court, No. B112981 (Cal.Ct.App. 1997)—Writ of mandate issued directing trial court to dismiss action based on res judicata principles after plaintiff tried to pursue state tort claims in state court following plaintiff's adverse summary judgment on related federal claims which had been brought in federal court.
• Thompson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997)—Amicus counsel for over 200 cities in a federal civil rights action with a protracted appellate history, filing briefs supporting petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court and supporting successful police officer defendants in Court of Appeals.
• Rohr Industries, Inc. v. First State Insurance Co., 59 Cal.App.4th 1480 (Cal.Ct.App. 1997)—In good faith settlement context, trial court cannot bar claims for contribution and indemnity of non-settling co-insurers.
• Moriya v. County of Los Angeles, No. B084610 (Cal.Ct.App. 1997)—In fatal shooting case, Court of Appeal affirmed judgment on directed verdict entered after jury hung and was unable to reach a verdict.
• Heeney v. Mansfield Scientific, Inc., No. 95-55797 (9th Cir. 1996)—Affirmed summary judgment for manufacturer in products liability action based on expiration of statute of limitations.
• Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996) affirming 858 F. Supp. 1064—In a comprehensive opinion affirming a summary judgment in favor of a deputy sheriff sued in a federal civil rights action, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that where a suspect is armed and in close proximity to the officer, the officer may use deadly force to defend himself.
• Robbins v. Hamburger Home for Girls, 32 Cal.App.4th 671 (Cal.Ct.App. 1995)—Representing shelter in case determining that shelters have a qualified privilege to not disclose their address to suspected abusers where the victim seeks temporary refuge at the shelter.
• Martel v. County of Los Angeles, 56 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc)—Confirming principle that an appellant must prove actual and substantial prejudice to obtain a reversal on appeal, notwithstanding the claim of inherent prejudice arising out of a district court mandating speedy disposition of cases and setting cases for trial three months after date of first answer.
• Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287 (9th Cir. 1995)—In a second generation lawsuit against the Court of Appeal justices, trial court judge and clerk, among others, the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of plaintiff's due process attack on the state court trial and appellate systems.
• Quemetco Inc. v. Pacific Automobile Insurance Co., 24 Cal.App.4th 494 (Cal.Ct.App. 1994)—Affirming summary judgment for client, Court of Appeal holds that the benefits of an insurance policy issued to a transferor corporation do not pass to the transferee corporation by operation of law upon a sale of all assets and liabilities.
• Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, 26 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal.Ct.App. 1994)—Representing police officers and the public entity employer who were found to be statutorily immune from liability for injuries arising out of a police vehicle pursuit.
• City of Riverside v. Superior Court, No. 013288 (Cal.Ct.App. 1993)—Writ of mandate issued directing trial court to enter order denying plaintiff relief from claim filing requirements of Government Code §§900, et seq.
• Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1992)—Ninth Circuit overturns sweeping preliminary injunction against the Sheriff's Department as overly broad and as unsupported by a factual record.
• Lua v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 6 Cal.App.4th 1897 (Cal.Ct.App. 1992)—Court of Appeal reverses plaintiff's verdict based on negligence per se because the trial judge improperly created a civil duty of care from state administrative regulations, which required grade crossings to be cleared within 10 minutes.
• Mullins v. Mayflower Ins. Co., 9 Cal.App.4th 416 (Cal.Ct.App. 1992)—Affirming summary judgment for insurer in case that establishes the scope of uninsured motorist coverage for accidents, which are connected to a motor vehicle, but which do not occur in or about the motor vehicle.
• Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. Supreme Court 1991)—The California Supreme Court issued its leading opinion on third party standing to sue for monetary damages on emotional distress theories, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Hydro Systems, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 472 (9th Cir. 1991) affirming 717 F. Supp. 700—Affirming summary judgment for insurer finding absolute pollution exclusion applies to efforts by industry to comply with municipal abatement order.
• Coy v. County of Los Angeles, 235 Cal.App.3d 1077 (Cal.Ct.App. 1991)—Reversing plaintiff's $1 million jury verdict, and directing entry of judgment in client's favor, Court of Appeal construed statute of limitations for lawsuits against governmental entities arising out of property that was lawfully seized during police search, but never returned.
• Buehler v. Alpha Beta Co., 224 Cal.App.3d 729 (Cal.Ct.App. 1990)—Representing grocery store in obtaining affirmance of summary judgment in premises liability case, which establishes criteria for trial judge's determination on sufficiency of evidence of notice and defect and when issue can be resolved as a question of law.
• Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles, 222 Cal.App.3d 869 (Cal.Ct.App. 1990)—Representing county social workers who were found to be absolutely immune from civil liability in connection with their investigation of child abuse and initiation of dependency hearings.
• Elene H. v. County of Los Angeles, 220 Cal.App.3d 1445 (Cal.Ct.App. 1990)—Affirming summary judgment in favor of sheriff's deputies in child abuse case brought by parents to whom child was subsequently returned
• Coats v. K-Mart Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 961 (Cal.Ct.App. 1989)—Corporation's nonsuit in wrongful death action affirmed because of heirs' failure to prove their legal entitlement to recovery.

Mr. Collodel was chosen as a Settlement Referee for the North Central District Settlement Program, and as a Judge for the Witkin Legal Institute’s Roger J. Traynor California Moot Court Competition (2002, 2004).  He was also a Judge for the National Trial Competition (sponsored by the Texas Young Lawyers Assoc., Amernican Colloege of Trial Lawyers (2006).

Mr. Collodel has been recognized by his peers, named a “Southern California Super Lawyer” from 2004-2011 by the publishers of Los Angeles Magazine and the Journal for Law & Politics.

Presentations & Publications

Mr. Collodel contributed a chapter addressing stays to the Continuing Education of the Bar Treatise, California CIVIL WRIT Practice, Fourth Ed. 2008.  Also, he co-authored “Lawyers Beware: State High Court Ruling Expands Tort of Malicious Prosecution” which may be found in Washington Legal Foundation, Vol 14. No. 14, July 23, 2004.  Two of his articles appear in DRI publications: “Oral Argument-California Style?”, Defense Research Institute’s Appellate Advocacy Committee’s Certworthy, (Fall 1998); and, “Musings about Legal Writing” was published in DRI's For the Defense, (August 2001). He is also a contributor to Sedgwick’s Appellate Strategist blog.

Affiliations, Activities and Accomplishments

Mr. Collodel is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association where he has served on its Appellate Courts and Appellate Election Evaluations Committees since 1993.  He currently chairs a subcommittee that prepared the Appellate Courts Committee’s Primer for California’s Second District Court of Appeal, which is designed to serve as a guide for infrequent appellate practitioners and pro se litigants. 

Mr. Collodel is also a member of the Italian American Lawyer's Association and has served on its Board of Governors (including service as President in 2000) since 1995.  In addition, he is a volunteer settlement officer for the Los Angeles County Superior Court (1993-present) and the Second District Court of Appeal (1996-present).