David Jones | Woodland Hills Employment Lawyer

Partner David G. Jones has substantial experience in providing advice on labor and employment issues to both employers and employees. Mr. Jones is also well versed in employment litigation, having handled cases, among many others, concerning discrimination, sexual harassment, benefits issues, and retaliation.  In the past, Mr. Jones has represented entities such as City and County of Los Angeles and Wal-Mart in employment related matters.


Mr. Jones has drafted, reviewed and negotiated hundreds of employment and severance agreements for employers and employees at all levels, from large companies to small, and executives to rank and file employees.  Additionally, Mr. Jones is versed in the drafting of employment policies and employee handbooks.  Mr. Jones regularly defends employers in connection with governmental investigations relating to wage and hour and various other employment related compliance inquiries.

With a varied litigation background which includes significant experience in complex civil litigation matters and appellate advocacy before state and federal courts, he is well suited to handle complex business litigation matters.  Mr. Jones has a background which includes insurance bad faith defense litigation and substantial exposure to equine law issues, with a focus on thoroughbred horse racing matters.

Always on the forefront of emerging employment issues, Mr. Jones developed arguments adopted in Latona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. (C.D. Cal.1999) 82 F.Supp.2d 1089, the first reported California opinion finding that the firing of employees who refuse to sign non-compete agreements constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of the public policy of the State of California.  This decision ensured that employees must be shielded from such oppressive conduct by employers.

Mr. Jones also successfully argued and prevailed in Gavin W. v. YMCA (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 662, a landmark decision regarding liability releases in California. The Court in Gavin W. ruled that child care providers may not contract away their duty to exercise ordinary care in watching children under their supervision. In invalidating the YMCA standard form release, the Court decided that child care releases seeking to absolve providers of their own negligence are void because they affect the public interest, and determined that children needed to be protected and compensated.

More recently, Mr. Jones successfully argued a case before the California Supreme Court in Klein v. United States (2010) 50 Cal.4th 68, a decision with broad implications for both outdoor recreationists and landowners within the State of California.  In Klein, the Court sided with outdoor enthusiasts. Simply stated, the Court determined that landowners should not be let off the hook when they negligently injure people in recreational areas.  Due to the vigilant efforts of Mr. Jones, recreationists are now protected when they are injured by careless landowners.
Mr. Jones also served as a Settlement Officer for the Los Angeles Superior Court, in its Voluntary Settlement Conference Program from 2009 to 2012.

Mr. Jones has been AV Rated (Preeminent) by Martindale Hubbell, receiving a 5.0 of a possible 5.0.

Position	Organization	Location	Duration
Partner	Santiago & Jones	Woodland Hills, CA	2013-2016

School	Degree	Major	Graduation
Whittier Law School	JD	Law School	1996
Loyola Marymount Univ; Los Angeles CA	BA	Political Science	1991

State / Court	Date
California	1996

• Vice President, Whittier Law School Alumni Association, 2016
  
  ARS Committee Member, San Fernando Valley Bar Association, 2016

• AV Rated- Preeminent- Martindale Hubbell (5.0 of a possible 5.0)
  AVVO 10 out of 10 rating

• SPAHL v. SANTIAGO
  Defendant: Attorney for the defendants-respondents, Artemio Santiago et al.The defendant and his law firm represented the plaintiffs for four years in a trust litigation. They terminated the representation and retained new council before the proceedings were over. At the time of termination they owed a significant amount in unpaid attorney fees. The parties settled their dispute and entered a settlement agreement. The plaintiffs would go on to file instant action against the defendant for legal malpractice, fraud and breach of contract. The defendants countered that err their settlement agreement the plaintiff was barred against taking any action. A judge found in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. After review of the case it was ruled that the trial court did not err and the judgement was affirmed.

• Confidential Plaintiff v. Confidential Defendant Outcome: $800,000 Settlement

• KLEIN v UNITED STATES
  Attorney for the Appellants in a California Appeals case in with said Appellants asked the California Supreme Court to answer the following question: Does California Civil Code §846, California's recreational land use statute, immunize a landowner from liability for acts of vehicular negligence committed by the landowner's employee in the course and scope of his employment that cause personal injury to a recreational user of that land? This Appeal came after said Appellants lost a case against the US government regarding an accident that occurred on a road owned by the National Forrest. The Appellant (Klein) was struck and severely injured by a volunteer federal worker but because the Appellant was using the road for "recreational purposes" the Government was deemed immune and Trial Court granted summary judgement.

• “Weiss v. United States: Military Judges and Appointment By Indirection,” 16 Whittier Law Review 575, 1996

Sun.	Mon.	Tue.	Wed.	Thu.	Fri.	Sat.
	8:30 am - 5:30 pm	8:30 am - 5:30 pm	8:30 am - 5:30 pm	8:30 am - 5:30 pm	8:30 am - 5:30 pm

• LinkedIn
• Avvo
• Yelp
• For More Information About David Jones