Guy W. Stilson

visit superlawyers.com

Guy Stilson has been a civil litigator since 1989. He has acted as lead trial counsel in a variety of matters in state and federal courts, including toxic and mass tort cases, landlord/property owner liability, security officer and security company liability, products liability, construction defect and personal injury litigation, as well as business, contract, copyright, entertainment and intellectual property disputes. He has also been very active representing clients before the state and federal courts of appeal and is currently the Chairperson of Low, Ball & Lynch's Appellate Department. Some of the appellate matters he has been involved in are listed below:

• Plancarte v. Guardsmark, LLC, et al., 118 Cal.App.4th 640. A security officer pleaded guilty to committing a sexual assault while on duty for a security company. Stilson represented the security company. The Court of Appeal found the security officer was not acting in the course and scope of his duty when the assault occurred and was not negligent in hiring, training and overseeing the security officer.
• Hroscikoski v. City of Glendale, et al., 146 Fed.Appx. 94. Plaintiff filed civil rights action alleging wrongful citizen's arrest by hotel personnel. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of hotel owner, after Stilson showed evidence of good cause for arrest and lacked evidence of conspiracy with police.
• Hall v. North American Van Lines, et al., 476 F.3d 683. Stilson represented interstate carrier sued by plaintiff who claimed defendant refused to release her property and effectively held it for ransom. The action was removed to federal court and dismissed on the ground that federal law pre-empted plaintiff's claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Carmack Amendment joins those few statutes which completely pre-empt well-pleaded state claims, resulting in jurisdiction over such claims existing only under federal law.
• Schultz v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 240 Fed. Appx. 766. Plaintiff sued BART after falling when a BART train accelerated from a stop. The Ninth Circuit found that Design Immunity theory precluded any possibility of liability.
• Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont, 143 Cal.App.4th 1074. A plaintiff who fell in a public dog park claimed the paved walkway through the park constituted a dangerous condition. Stilson, representing the City of Piedmont, convinced the Court of Appeal that trail immunity for public entities (Gov't Code §831.4(b)) precluded liability, as "trail" and "sidewalk" are not mutually exclusive terms, that trails can exist in urban locations, and that trail immunity includes immunity regarding the design and location of trails as well as maintenance of trails.
• Sacramento Suncreek Apartments, LLC, et. al. v. Cambridge Advantaged Properties II, L.P., et al., 187 Cal.App.4th 1. Plaintiffs/purchasers of an apartment complex alleged loss due to nondisclosure and sued the Delaware limited partners of the now-dissolved limited partnership which sold them the property. Plaintiffs argued that California's ability to tax the Delaware defendants on their income from the California investment demonstrated California's jurisdiction over these defendants. Stilson argued that there was no jurisdiction under either the traditional minimum contacts test or under plaintiffs' novel "taxable jurisdiction" theory. The Court of Appeal held for defendants, stating that the purchase of limited partnership interests and the expectation of receiving income form a business operating solely in California was, under the circumstances, an insufficient contact to support jurisdiction.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Follow @GuyStilson on Twitter!