Thomas Bingham Cummings, Attorney

Thomas Cummings graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1964 with a Bachelor's degree in history. Thereafter, he attended UCLA School of Law, graduating with a J.D. degree in 1967.

He started his legal career in 1968 with the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, prosecuting misdemeanors for about 1 years. He obtained a conviction in one prominent case involving over 300 students who failed to disburse from an unlawful assembly at what was then San Fernando Valley State College. The conviction was eventually appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the conviction was affirmed.

Mr. Cummings worked with the City of Los Angeles for approximately 3 years in the Civil Liability Division of the City Attorney's Office, defending personal injury litigation. In the 3 years he tried approximately twenty civil jury trials to conclusion involving automobile accidents, dangerous conditions of public property, landslides and claimed civil rights violations committed by Los Angeles police officers

Mr. Cummings was in private practice, specializing in the defense of personal injury litigation from 1972 to 1982, at which time he started his own law firm. He has continued to be self employed, specializing in the defense of personal injury litigation, and expanding the practice to include defense of housing discrimination litigation or other claims that tenants might bring against landlords, defense of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as various types of contract and real estate claims.

Mr. Cummings obtained membership in the prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates in 1973. He has now tried approximately 135 civil jury trials to conclusion. He holds the rank of Diplomate in the American Board of Trial Advocates, which is the highest rank conferred by that organization. There are approximately 6,000 members in the American Board of Trial Advocates nationwide, but only approximately 200 members hold the rank of Diplomate. In order to be awarded the rank of Diplomate in the American Board of Trial Advocates, the member must have completed a minimum of 100 jury trials to conclusion.

Mr. Cummings served on the Executive Committee of the American Board of Trial Advocates, Orange County Chapter, from 1982 to 1988, and was President of the Chapter in 1987. He has served on the National Board of Directors of the American Board of Trial Advocates from 1986 to 1988, and again from 2002 to 2008.

Mr. Cummings was given an AV rating by the Martindale Hubbell Law Directory in 1982, and has maintained that rating to the present time.

He has served as an Arbitrator for both the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Orange County Superior Court from 1973 to the present. He has also served as a Settlement Conference Officer for the Orange County Superior Court from 1977 to the present time. Mr. Cummings is admitted to the State Bar of California, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court.

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW WITH JOHN & KEN

In August 2006, Mr. Cummings was involved as a defense attorney on a case being brought by a plaintiff named David Gunther, who sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gunther is in a wheelchair, having suffered a spinal cord injury a number of years ago. However, Mr. Gunther has filed hundreds of lawsuits claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

After Mr. Cummings received the defense verdict, he reported that verdict to a Southern California radio program hosted by personalities John & Ken.  John & Ken had been reporting on the litigation activities of Mr. Gunther on several of their shows.  The trial conducted by Mr. Cummings may well be the only lawsuit that has gone to verdict against Mr. Gunther, with a defense verdict received.  Mr. Cummings did do an interview with John & Ken concerning Mr. Gunther's litigation activities.

As a result of that radio interview, Mr. Cummings has received other assignments from other people who have been sued either by Mr. Gunther or by other persons who appear to be taking advantage of the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Cummings is admitted to the State Bar of California, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court.

Cummings is admitted to the State Bar of California, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court.

CASES TRIED TO JUDGMENT

THOMAS B. CUMMINGS:

Brendel vs. City of Garden Grove (Dangerous Condition of Public Property - Claim that public street was slippery, allowing plaintiff to rear-end another vehicle; plaintiff claimed that patching the street with a rubberized material to fill in cracks created the slippery condition.  A reconstruction was done on the street, covering the entire street with the rubberized patching material and videotaped.  The testing conclusively proved the patching material did not create a slippery condition); Orange County Municipal Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict.

Jayne vs. Grant & Roth (Product Liability Case - Claim of defective eye guard manufactured by defendant for use in racquetball; The eye guard the plaintiff wore was lensless eye guard.  The plaintiff's racquetball partner hit a shot that traveled at high speed and struck the very center of the eye guard, causing the racquetball to compress and force its way into the eye guard striking the plaintiff's eyeball.  Plaintiff contended that a lensless eye guard was a defective design and the only appropriate eye guard had a protective lens.  National champion racquetball player Marty Hogan testified as a defense witness; Plaintiff suffered detached retina and loss of vision); Los Angeles Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict.

Tatum v. City of Garden Grove (Defense of Police Officers on Claims of False Arrest and Excessive Force arising out of a domestic relations dispute - 3 individual police officers were defendants in addition to City of Garden Grove.  The police officers had to subdue two individuals with batons and the use of flashlights, resulting in physical injuries to the plaintiffs.  The case was tried at the height of the Rodney King litigation against the City of Los Angeles, with the excessive force issues in the news on a daily basis.  The defense included probably cause for arrest and reasonable force required to detain and subdue plaintiffs); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict.

Doke vs. Bates-Lee (Product Liability - defendant manufactured children's' menu for a restaurant which contained an elastic band to make part of their menu into a visor.  The elastic band with metal tips at the end was detached by a child who snapped the band and the tip penetrated his eye.  Minor plaintiff had almost total loss of vision in one eye; In addition to the loss of vision, the minor plaintiff also had a cosmetic defect in the eye; Plaintiff's attorney contended the use of an elastic band with a metal tip on a product to be used by a child was inherently dangerous pre trial offer - $150,000.00); Los Angeles Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict.

Terry vs. Farmers (Claim of Bad Faith Claims Handling arising out of an uninsured motorist arbitration.  The claims included delays and under-evaluation of the uninsured motorist claim, which did go to arbitration.  The defense pointed out that plaintiff had not been forthcoming in providing necessary information to evaluate and adjust the claim and that any delays, therefore, were due to the conduct of the plaintiff and not the claims handler); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict after approximately ten (10) minutes of jury deliberation.

Priestly vs. Lang (Automobile Accident - Defendant made left turn in front of plaintiff); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Plaintiff was an excellent witness, had ongoing physical complaints of injury, although they were primarily subjective in nature. The insurance policy limits were only $50,000.00 and the plaintiff's attorney did make a policy limits statutory demand, so the case presented as one with exposure above the policy limits on a case of adverse liability. Plaintiff Verdict of $27,000.00 which was below statutory offer of $32,000.00.  In a post-trial motion, the verdict was further reduced by the amount of costs and expert witness fees incurred in the defense.

Phelps vs. Estate of  McCarthy (Defamation Suit by 3 automobile sales managers at McCarthy Buick, who were fired by the owner - owner was alleged to have made statements that all three were thieves and liars.  Owner had died before case went to trial. Owner had a volatile history of firing other sales people and making other similar comments. The dealership had a high turnover of sales personnel due to what could have been viewed as arbitrary and capricious decision making by the deceased owner.  Because owner had died, the owner was unable to defend his own conduct.); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict.

1120 Central Condo Association vs. Don Cox Construction (Claims of Fraud and Construction Defect in the construction of a duplex - claims included soils subsidence, non-compliance with plans and specifications and lack of proper permits); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  $14,000.00 Plaintiff Verdict.  Plaintiffs' application for post-trial award of attorney fees was denied.  Judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Estate of Batman vs. Weaver (Wrongful Death and Personal Injury lawsuit - defendant owned an antique cannon - decedent packed the cannon with gun powder stored on the defendant's premises in order to discharge the cannon on New Year's Eve - cannon was approximately 300 years old and exploded into multiple pieces, killing decedent and injuring a minor child standing nearby.  This case had the potential for a very large sympathy verdict for plaintiffs.  The decedent died by virtue of having both legs dramatically amputated and by being disemboweled in the explosion of the cannon.  Pieces of the cannon penetrated the walls of neighboring houses.  The minor plaintiff was struck by several pieces of the cannon and witnessed the traumatic injuries to the decedent.); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdicts on both wrongful death action and personal injury action.

Jeanmarie vs. Otis (Claims of Racial Discrimination - Defendants owned and managed an apartment complex and rented to, then later evicted an inter-racial couple.  Claims included violations of the Federal Housing Act, Civil Rights violations and claims of violation of the State Fair Housing laws.  Plaintiffs attempted to claim that the reason for their eviction was due to the prejudice of the on-site manager against an inter-racial couple and for no other reason.  The defense was required to prove the lack of prejudice on the part of the on-site manager and reasonable business decisions as the basis for the eviction.  The trial lasted one month.): Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense Verdict.

Pestano vs.  Mid-Century Insurance Company (Claim of Bad Faith claims handling arising out of uninsured motorist claim - Claimant's attorney failed to produce information to allow insurance company to evaluate a claim for loss of earnings or earning capacity - insurance policy limits were $15,000.00 and Arbitration in the uninsured motorist matter resulted in a $47,000.00 Arbitration Award - the $15,000.00 policy limits were paid pursuant to the policy terms - defendant contended plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to cooperate and provide information in a timely fashion and failing to disclose a last minute new doctor and new medical opinions before Arbitration); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Plaintiff Verdict for $75,000.00, general damages.  Motion for New Trial granted on all issues, including an Order that a re-trial would not include punitive damages.  Judgment notwithstanding the verdict also granted, but allowing $75,000.00 general damage to remain.  Plaintiff appealed the post trial motions.  The motions were affirmed on appeal and the matter was returned to the trial court for further proceedings.  The matter was then settled for a total of $55,000.00

Padgham vs. Foster (Automobile Accident - Defendant was intoxicated on Christmas Eve and struck plaintiff vehicle head-on, causing elderly female plaintiff to sustain fractured and dislocated hip - plaintiff contended she would need a total hip prosthesis - defendant pleaded guilty to felony drunk driving before trial in the criminal case - policy limits of $150,000.00 were offer before trial - plaintiff attorney was pursuing an excess verdict situation); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Plaintiff verdict for $125,000.00.  Jury found malicious and despicable conduct on part of defendant concerning driving while intoxicated.  Case was settled for $130,000.00 total before the second phase of trial on punitive damages.

GAB vs. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services (Plaintiff independent insurance adjuster sued defendant who is also an independent insurance adjusting company - defendant had hired 18 of plaintiff's employees who believed their jobs were in jeopardy through downsizing - plaintiff contended the departing employees took trade secrets and engaged in acts of unfair competition - plaintiff also contended that at least one departing employee breached his fiduciary duty as he was a vice president of plaintiff - plaintiff contended defendants interfered with economic relationships with on-going insurance companies and self-insureds - pre-trial demand was $7,000,000.00 - damages claimed at trial for loss of income were in excess of $19,000,000.00 - trial lasted 13 weeks); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Defense verdict on 8 separate causes of action by vote of 12 - 0.  Jury deliberation time was approximately 2 hours.  The matter was on Appeal.  The Appellate Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.  The matter was remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial on issues of breach of fiduciary duty as to co-defendant Randall Neal and unfair competition as to Randall Neal and Lindsey & Newsom.  The Appellate Court determined that the fiduciary issues should have been addressed as a matter of law.

Allstate v. Smith (Fire damage lawsuit.  Original plaintiff Allstate sued Southern California Edison and clients Margaret Mee and Jean Smith.  A palm tree on the Smith/Mee property made contact with an Edison power line in high wind conditions, causing sparks to fly on roof of Edison insured, causing damages of some $220,000.  Edison settled with Allstate for $165,000 and sought contribution from defendants in the amount of $82,500.   Trial lasted two weeks) Orange County Superior Court; jury trial; defense verdict by vote of 11 to 0.  Jury deliberated one hour.

Capone v. Harbor Econo Lube N Tune:  (Auto v. motorcycle accident.  Defendant admittedly at fault 100%.  Plaintiff had certain undisputed injuries, primarily soft tissue neck and back injuries.  Plaintiff claimed a head injury which was highly disputed, along with claimed seizure disorder, personality and memory problems and other head injury-related problems.  Plaintiff also claimed a nose injury requiring removal of a previously-installed nose prosthesis.  Plaintiff claimed facial scarring to the nose and chin from the subject accident which was disputed.  Defendant called five medical expert witnesses to rebut plaintiff's multiple claims.  Pretrial demand was $1,000,000, representing defendant's policy limits.  Pretrial offer was $200,000.  Trial lasted two weeks); Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  Plaintiff verdict for total of $32,740 economic damages and $31,200 non-economic damages, for a grand total of $63,940 total damages.  Jury deliberation time was approximately two hours.

Smith v. Johnson: (Claim of civil rights violations, litigated in Federal Court.  Plaintiff and defendant were and are neighbors.  Plaintiff has claimed harassment by defendant against plaintiff, and claimed that defendant engaged in a conspiracy with the Laguna Beach Police to violate plaintiff's civil rights.  Plaintiff claims he was falsely arrested on one occasion.  Plaintiff presented no economic damages but claimed long-standing and continuing non-economic damages through ongoing alleged harassment.  Pretrial demand initially was $750,000 as to defendant, a co-defendant and the City of Laguna Beach.  The demand was lowered to $75,000 immediately before trial.  Trial was 10 days in Federal District Court); jury trial.  Jury deliberation time was approximately two hours, and a defense verdict by a vote of 7 to 0 was returned for all defendants.

Davoodi v. Turtle Rock Pointe Homeowners Association:  (Plaintiff's claim of property damage due to roof leaks/water intrusion in El Nino storm.  Plaintiff claimed defendant homeowners association had notice of prior roof leaks and failed to repair the leaks.  Plaintiff made a first party insurance recovery of over $90,000, and attempted to make a double recovery by suing the homeowners association and the owner of the condominium she occupied.  She claimed $106,000 for property damage to furniture and clothing, as a result of water intrusion.  Water did intrude into plaintiff's house through the chimney, however, plaintiff discarded both furniture and clothing before any could be inspected, claiming total and complete damage.  Plaintiff's estimated damage appeared to be quite exaggerated.  Pretrial demand was $85,000 to the homeowners association and to co-defendant landlords.  Trial lasted five days); Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  Jury deliberation time was approximately two hours.  A defense verdict by a vote of 12 to 0 was returned.

Stiller v. Roberts:  (Plaintiff's claim for assault, battery, intentional interference with his employment as a security guard and conspiracy for wrongful termination, among other theories.  Plaintiff was a security guard at a gated homeowners association.  Plaintiff had been allowing unauthorized access to the community over a period of time.  Defendant was an individual homeowner, not a member of any board of directors, who had a number of conversations with plaintiff, asking him to enforce the rules about access to the community.  The events involved in the lawsuit occurred when plaintiff and defendant had a discussion concerning rule enforcement.  Defendant's car door was partially open as her driver's door window did not operate.  Plaintiff contended that defendant intentionally closed the car door on him, causing physical injury.  Defendant denied that allegation.  Plaintiff also contended that defendant contacted his employer and demanded his termination.  Plaintiff in fact was terminated three days after the incident for violation of company rules.  Defendant denied being involved in the termination.  Plaintiff's pretrial demand was $50,000.  Trial lasted six days); Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  Jury deliberation was approximately five hours.  The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff of $15,000, concluding that defendant's car door inadvertently made physical contact with plaintiff.  The jury rejected plaintiff's claim for aggravation of prior physical injuries, mental or emotional distress and the need for psychological counseling, and also rejected the claim of wrongful termination or interference with his employment.

Bill v. Warino:  (Plaintiff consolidated two rear-ender lawsuits for trial.  Defendant Warino was involved in the second accident.  The second accident was a very minor impact with no property damage to defendant's car and very minimal damage to plaintiff's car.  Plaintiff claimed temporomandibular joint problems as well as neck and back injuries.  The TMJ injuries were the major component of plaintiff's claims.  She eventually underwent two surgical procedures to the right jaw joint and to surgical procedures to the left.  She claimed permanent TMJ problems.  Past medical billing was claimed in the amount of $80,000.00, $23,000.00 occurring before the second accident and $55,000.00 occurring after the second accident.  The plaintiff claimed approximately $153.00 in future medical billing.  The plaintiff had made a policy limit demand of $250,000.00 for the first accident and $30,000.00 for the second accident in pre-trial statutory offers, representing the policy limits of insurance available for each accident.  Neither statutory offer was accepted.  Trial lasted eight days.);  Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  The jury deliberated approximately six hours and returned a verdict against the defendant in the first accident in the amount of $317,427.00.  The jury verdict against defendant Warino for the second accident was $20,331.00.  Therefore, the verdict concerning the first accident was $67,000.00 over the policy limits demand, and the verdict for the second accident was approximately $10,000.00 below the policy demand.

Haynes v. Morrow:  (Plaintiff was passenger in SUV driven by Defendant Morrow.  Defendant Morrow was traveling on surface streets at up to 80 miles an hour, swerved to pass a slow moving vehicle and rear ended a parked mobile home.  The airbag deployed on the passenger side, but plaintiff suffered a head injury and was unconscious for several days.  Plaintiff claimed brain damage consisting of loss of ability to communicate as well as the loss of the ability to do critical analysis or even retain basis instruction.  Plaintiff claimed loss of earning capacity of over $500,000.00 medical bills of $64,000.00.  Plaintiff was age 21 at the time of trial); Orange County Superior Court; jury trial. 

The plaintiff attorney asked for $1,800,000.00 in argument based on the economic damages set forth above.  The jury awarded $150,000.00 in non-economic damages and $164,920.00 in economic damages.  The net verdict after application of the 10% comparative fault to the phantom driver was $301,920.00.  The jury chose to believe that plaintiff did not suffer any permanent brain injury, that plaintiff was in substantially the same situation as he was prior to the accident and that he would not have suffered any significant loss of earnings or earning capacity. 

Avina v. Macias:  (Specific performance, conversion theories breach of contract and property damage.  Plaintiffs sued their aunt and uncle over a claimed sale of the aunt and uncle's family residence; plaintiffs occupied the residence for several years but breached the purchase agreement and were evicted by defendants, who reclaimed the premises;  plaintiffs claim property damage to their personal property items that were removed from the house);  Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  Pre trial demand was $70,000.  Court granted non-suit on specific performance theory and breach of contract.  Jury verdict of $2,470.00 for property damage.

Southdown, Inc. v. BRD, Inc. dba Nu West Fabrication & Rubber Supply:  (Contractual indemnity in which Southdown sued BRD, Inc. to attempt to recover a $2 million dollar settlement it had paid to a plaintiff who was badly injured in an electrical incident on Southdown property; Defendant was present on the property where the electrical incident occurred for a very short period of time; while electricity to the Southdown property was supposed to have been de-energized, that did not occur and a buried underground residential distribution switch remained hot on part of the property; the injured plaintiff came in contact with the switch and received approximately 12,000 volts of electricity; Southdown claimed it was entitled to contractual indemnity from BRD, Inc. based on a one-page document that it had all vendors sign who came onto its property to perform work); Los Angeles County Superior Court, Pomona Branch; Jury trial.  Defense verdict after approximately one hour of jury deliberation.

Gunther v. Chapman Plaza:  (Claim by wheelchair bound plaintiff for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Plaintiff claimed counter in defendant's store were too tall for him in his wheelchair.  The defense showed that a desk height work station was available for plaintiff to use, however, plaintiff stated he never looked for such a work station when he entered the store and that defendant was obligated to have someone point the desk out to him); Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  Jury verdict by vote of 12 to 0 in favor of defense after one half hour of deliberation.

Reddy v. Montagu:  (Representation of plaintiff landlord in unlawful detainer action against tenant obligated to pay $6,000.00 a month for a custom house.  Tenant claimed habitability issues as an excuse for non-payment of rent.  In the representation of plaintiff landlord, the evidence showed that any claimed defects or problems at the rental house did not involve issues of health and safety, and therefore did not raise a habitability defense); Orange County Superior Court; Jury Trial.  Jury Verdict by vote of 12 to 0 in favor of plaintiff landlord.

Estate of Kim: (Representation of proponent of will in a will contest action.  Proponent was long time girlfriend of decedent, both primarily Korean language speakers.  Decedent left his entire estate to long time girlfriend, excluding his three daughters completely.  Issues were raised concerning forgery, testamentary intent and undue influence.  The will used a name for the decedent, which the decedent had never used during his lifetime and referred to the long time girlfriend as spouse although they had never married.  The three daughters challenged the nature of the relationship between decedent and the girlfriend/proponent of the will, claiming decedent did not have any strong relationship with the girlfriend and never would have left everything to the girlfriend); Los Angeles Superior Court; Court Trial; 5 day trial.  Order issued by court in favor of long time girlfriend/will proponent, ordering the will to be received into probate.  The court wrote a 30-page minute order summarizing the evidence, finding in favor of client.

Kaye v. Covenant:  (Two different acts of trespass by defendant general contractor onto plaintiff's adjacent property.  On both occasions, defendant thought it had permission to enter on the property, cut down a rod iron fence and then apply stucco color coating to a block wall fence that was on plaintiff's property.  The wrought iron fence had to be cut to allow access to do the stucco color coat.  In fact, due to miscommunication, plaintiff had not granted permission to enter on to plaintiff's property or to cut down the fence on either occasion.  Trial proceeded on theories of trespass and a claim for punitive damages also was made); San Diego Superior Court; jury trial.  Plaintiff verdict against Covenant Builders and Lott 66 Development Corporation but defense verdict for two employees.  Verdict was $16,445.00.  Jury found malice on behalf of the entity defendants and returned a punitive damage award of $4,111.00.

Doan v. Nguyen:  (Assault and Battery claim arising out of a shoving incident during a tennis match.  Plaintiff and defendant were on the same team and plaintiff started an argument because defendant did not return a shot the plaintiff thought should have been returned.  Plaintiff continued the argument after the tennis match completed with tempers escalating.  Plaintiff eventually jumped in the way of defendant and challenged defendant to hit plaintiff.  Defendant pushed plaintiff who fell to his knees.  Plaintiff jumped up and indicated he was calling the police.  A second pushing and shoving event resulted in plaintiff again being pushed to the ground but suffering no injuries.  Plaintiff had one doctor visit and no loss of earnings.  Pre trial demand $15,000.00); Orange County Superior Court; jury trial.  Jury returned verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1.  Jury found malice on the part of defendant, but awarded zero dollars for punitive damages.

Antonova v. Duringer: (Malicious Prosecution lawsuit against Attorney-Client who prosecuted an unlawful detainer action against plaintiff.  Plaintiff vacated the rental property during the course of the unlawful detainer action, which was later dismissed without prejudice.  Plaintiff contended the dismissal allowed her to be considered the prevailing party for the purpose of a malicious prosecution action); Los Angeles Superior Court; 21 day jury trial.  Jury verdict by 12 to 0 in favor of defendant after jury deliberated for approximately 3 hours.