Vangi Johnson is the Practice Group Leader for the firm’s Appellate Practice Group, and is also a member of the Professional Liability and Employment & Labor Practice Groups. She has distinguished herself in appellate work, being certified as a specialist in Appellate Law by the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization. Certification as an appellate law specialist is rigorously vetted and one of the most respected designations in the legal profession. Less than one percent of attorneys licensed in California are certified as appellate law specialists. Vangi also maintains an active litigation practice, and has been successful in offering a fresh, objective prospective, while maintaining continuity of counsel from the trial court through the appellate courts. She is one of the select panel counsel for the largest insurer of religious institutions in the country, and has represented its insureds at the trial court and appellate levels.
In the appellate courts, Vangi’s state and federal achievements encompass a variety of issues on appeal and/or by writ, including arbitration provisions, bad faith claims, standing, res judicata, DOE amendments, statutes of limitation, dismissal following Demurrer, discovery disputes, privileges, workers’ compensation issues, judgment following Summary Judgment, res ipsa loquitur, expert witness testimony, punitive damages, juror misconduct, jury instructions and special verdicts. As an appellate specialist, she also provides strategic guidance at the trial court level, assessment of appealability, post-trial management of motions and post-trial management of stays. Vangi is active in all phases of the appellate process, including preservation of appealable issues, record assessment and preparation, research, briefing and argument.
In the trial courts, Vangi’s state and federal litigation practice focuses on church-related litigation, employment law, elder care and professional liability. Vangi provides pre-litigation assessment and counseling, direct client contact, strategic management of cases, decisions regarding expert retention and participation in the negotiation and mediation processes. She is active in all phases of litigation, including initial pleadings, written discovery, law and motion, dispositive motions, depositions, expert discovery, trial preparation and post-trial determinations.
Recent Published Decisions
Nava v. Saddleback Memorial Medical Center, et al. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 285:
The medical negligence statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §340.5 applies when the negligence complained of is “integrally related” to the patient’s treatment or diagnosis. Such includes transferring a patient on a gurney, as were the facts in Nava, and also the use or maintenance of medical equipment or premises while medical care is being provided to the patient, as were the facts in the California Supreme Court case, Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75, which was cited by the Nava Court.
Aluma Systems v. Nibbi Brothers, et al. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 620:
In a Declaratory Relief matter, where the parties contracted for the design and supply of wall formwork and deck shoring for a project site, they entered into an express indemnity agreement, which met the requirements of Labor Code §3864, and was also consistent with the proscriptions of Civil Code §§1431-1434 (Proposition 51). Proposition 51 permitted the seller, which had settled personal injury claims brought by the employees of the customer, to seek indemnity from the customer (employer) for its proportionate share of economic damages when such employees were injured on the project site. The fact that personal injury Complaints filed by the customer’s employees only alleged negligence by the seller was not conclusive because the jury could still apportion fault to the customer (employer).
Lone Star Security and Video, Inc. v. The City of Los Angeles, et al. (2016) 827 F.3d 1192:
City ordinances which regulate mobile billboard trailers, prohibiting the parking of specialized sign trailers on public streets, do not unconstitutionally restrict freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Such ordinances are narrowly tailored to the cities’ interests in traffic control, public safety and esthetics, and there are alternate mechanisms for advertising, such as billboards, bus benches, fliers and etc.