John Upton

John M. Upton is a Partner and leads the firm’s Law and Motion and Appellate Advocacy practice. He represents the firm’s clients in complex, high-stakes motions, appeals, and writ proceedings in California’s superior courts and appellate divisions.

John earned his J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law, where he was awarded the USD School of Law Merit Scholarship. He studied International and European Communities Law at the Institute of International and Comparative Law, Magdalen College, University of Oxford. He holds a B.A. in Economics and graduated cum laude from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

With hundreds of significant personal injury matters handled from intake through resolution, John brings battle-tested insight and sophisticated litigation strategy to a broad spectrum of plaintiff-side claims. His experience spans catastrophic automobile and trucking collisions, motorcycle accidents, premises liability, products liability, sexual abuse, and medical negligence actions. Clients and peers alike value his ability to translate complex facts and legal theory into compelling, outcome-oriented advocacy.

A frequent speaker and moderator, John regularly shares the stage with judges, arbitrators, mediators, and fellow practitioners on topics including pre-trial strategy, trial motions, and appellate practice. He is admitted to practice before all courts in the State of California and is an active member of Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles and the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Some of John’s recent Appellate Court decisions:

• Minnifield v. State of California, et al. No. B331542, 2025 WL 2416181 (August 21, 2025)
  • $8.5 million judgment affirmed. The Appellate Court rejected defense claims that the trial court wrongly admitted certain evidence, unfairly edited certain demonstrative exhibits, and erroneously allowed improper closing arguments.
• Walker v. City of Victorville, No. E076679, 2023 WL 2857067 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2023), review denied (July 12, 2023)
• Walker v. Viveros, No. E077215, 2023 WL 2857068 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2023)
  • Summary judgments in favor of City and homeowners defendants were reversed in a wrongful death case arising out a defective sidewalk.
• Brown v. Beach House Design & Dev., 85 Cal. App. 5th 516, 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 260 (2022), as modified (Nov. 21, 2022), review denied (Feb. 22, 2023)
  • Summary judgment in favor of a general contractor defendant was reversed in a case where the plaintiff fell from a scaffolding at a construction site.
• Armstrong v. Burnstan, No. D074386, 2020 WL 6129620, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2020)
  • Motion granting a new trial based on juror misconduct affirmed.

Some of John’s recent Superior Court victories:

• Vazquez v. Lyft, et al, LASC Case No. 21STCV11009
  • Summary judgment was denied after the court found triable issues of fact as to whether the Lyft driver was in the course and scope of his agency/employment.
• Kaufman v. Centinella, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV23075
  • Three separate motions for summary judgments were denied in a case involving the delayed diagnosis of an acute stroke. The Court found triable issues concerning breaches of the prevailing standard of care and causation.
• Garza v. Tesla, et al., LASC Case No. 23CMCV01424
  • Three separate motions for summary judgment were denied in a case arising from a multi-segment rear-end collision. After an initial crash left the plaintiff’s vehicle disabled, he remained stranded on the freeway shoulder for hours. A second vehicle struck him there, causing catastrophic injuries.
• Griffith vs. Simeone, et al. Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVPS2303174
  • Summary judgment was denied in an auto vs. pedestrian case involving a malfunctioning enhanced crosswalk lighting system that the plaintiff contends constitutes a dangerous condition of public property.
• Cohen vs. City Terrace Services, et al., LASC Case No.
  • The court denied a second motion for summary judgment in a case arising from a motorcycle that tipped onto the plaintiff while being secured to a trailer. The motion turned on issues of respondeat superior.
• Godinez v. Lakeshore Towers, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01173006-CU-PO-CJC
  • The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues as to whether the condition of a staircase in a parking structure was open and obvious and causally connected to a fall.
• Vowles v. Jones Lumber Company, Inc. SBSC Case no. CIVSB2226941
  • The court denied summary judgment in an off-road “jeeping” incident, finding triable issues as to whether the defendant’s conduct was protected by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine.
• Case name confidential
  • Summary judgment was denied in a childhood sexual assault case based on a breach of a duty to protect.
• Figueroa v. Foster Poultry Farms, et al; Merced Superior Court case No. 22CV-01720
  • Summary judgment was denied in a fatal truck v. auto collision where the Court found triable issues of the defendant’s breach of his duty of care.
• Beavers v. County of Orange, et al, OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01243983-CU-PO-CJC
  • Summary judgment based on trivial defect was denied in a sidewalk trip and fall case.
• Adams v. Redlands Unified School District
  • Summary judgment was denied in a case involving a fall from a defective staircase in a school auditorium.
• Arias v. City of Los Angeles
  • The City’s Motion for Summary Judgment denied in a case involving a fall from a Bird scooter caused by a displaced crack in a city sidewalk.
• Benitez Perez v. Olivarez
  • The defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication was denied in a case involving a disputed cancellation of Plaintiff’s liability insurance coverage.
• Benitez Perez v. Olivarez, et al.
  • The defendant’s summary adjudication motion was denied in disputed Proposition 213 case.
• Blanco Ortiz v. National General
  • An insurance company’s Motion for Summary Judgment denied in insurance bad faith case arising out of an auto v. semi-truck case.
• Crawford v. Xacala
  • A motion for summary judgment was denied in a case featuring a dispute over whether the defendant driver was in the course and scope of her agency at the time of the accident.
• Demirelli v. Darden Restaurants
  • A restaurant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in a case where a severely intoxicated patron was forced to leave the establishment and was severely injured in a fall shortly thereafter.
• Godinez v. Nationwide
  • An insurance company’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in an insurance bad faith case stemming from a motor vehicle accident.
• Guerrero v. City of La Verne
  • Summary judgment was denied in a case where a limb fell from a tree in a city park and struck the minor plaintiff.
• Jane Doe v. LDS Church
  • Summary judgment was denied in a case where the plaintiff alleged that a negligent undertaking by church officials resulted in the plaintiff suffering further sexual abuse by her stepfather.
• Manukyan v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
  • The City’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in a sidewalk trip and fall case.
• Martine v. Moulthrop
  • Summary judgment was denied in an auto v. bicycle accident in a case where the defendant argued that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of being injured during a recreational bike ride.
• Ordonez v. Gebruder Weiss, Inc., et al.
  • A staffing agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in a case involving a forklift operator placed on temporary assignment at a warehouse.
• Potenga v. Cynergy Cycles
  • A repair shop’s summary judgment motion was denied in a runaway bicycle case involving a dispute over a coaster brake.
• Shaheen v. Sun Buggie Fun Rentals, Inc., et al.
  • Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication motions were denied in an ATV rollover case in which the plaintiff became paralyzed.
• Sim v. State of California, et al.
  • Summary judgment denied in an offset head-on collision case in a construction zone.
• Suarez v. 2000 Gold Limited Partnership, et al.
  • A property owner’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in a case where a forklift rolled off of a loading dock, pinning the operator beneath it.
• Xu v. Yu
  • A business owner’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in a single-vehicle crash in which the dispute centered on whether the driver was in the course and scope of his employment as he was transporting co-workers in a personal vehicle.
• Dolewski v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., et al.
  • The plaintiff entered a walk-in freezer located in the store’s stockroom. When the freezer door closed behind him, he could not locate the exit and was trapped overnight. Defendant Dollar Tree’s Motion for Summary Judgment, based primarily on an alleged lack of a duty of care, was denied.
• Helgager v. Doheny Vidovich Partners, et al.
  • The plaintiff was injured when a toilet in a yoga studio’s public bathroom blew apart after she flushed it. The yoga studio’s Motion for Summary Judgment, based in part on a signed liability waiver, was denied.
  • The plaintiff was injured when a toilet located in a yoga studio’s public bathroom blew apart after she flushed. The toilet manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied. The Court found triable issues of fact as to whether the toilet was negligently designed.
• Cabrera Lara v. Arbol Grading, et al.
  • Summary judgment was denied in a construction site incident where the plaintiff was injured while assisting a machine operator working in a different trade with his equipment. The defendant had argued that the plaintiff was barred from recovery based on the worker’s compensation “exclusive remedy” rule.
• Orozco-Gonzalez v. Gloth, et al.
  • Defendant Driver’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in fatal motor vehicle vs. scooter collision.
• McNellis v. Rodeway Inn Oceanside Marina, et al.
  • A hotel’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in a premises liability case where the plaintiff fell down an interior staircase.
• Hernstedt-Deal v. City of Bakersfield
  • Summary judgment was denied in a case involving a malfunctioning traffic signal.
• Nava v. Inglewood Properties II, LLC
  • Summary judgment was denied in a retaliatory/wrongful eviction case.