Marc J. Zimet
Managing Partner, California
Partner, Washington
Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet, LLP
800 Wilshire Boulevard
15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
ABOUT
Marc J. Zimet is recognized as a top civil defense attorney in the areas of professional liability, employment practices liability, directors and officers liability, and construction defect litigation. To date, Marc has obtained defense verdicts in all but three of the 40+ cases he has tried to verdict.
Marc is “AV”® rated with Martindale-Hubbell. He is licensed in California, Massachusetts, and Washington, and admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court as well as all California state and federal courts. Marc is an active member of the Defense Research Institute, the Professional Liability Underwriting Society and CLM. He is a frequent lecturer on a variety of professional liability and claims management topics.
Education
University of LaVerne, College of Law, 1995
Texas State University
Areas of practice
Litigation Percentage
100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation
Bar Admissions
California
Washington
Massachusetts
United States Supreme Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Associations
American Bar Association
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Association of Southern California Defense Counsel
Defense Research Institute
Professional Liability Underwriting Society
Claims Litigation Management
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
- Defense verdict in Fresno on claim for legal malpractice arising from an underlying medical malpractice arbitration against Kaiser. Plaintiff sued after client withdrew from plaintiff’s representation a week before the scheduled arbitration. Plaintiff alleged that after six years of treatment by Kaiser, Kaiser negligently failed to diagnose his interstitial lung disease, contracted from HIV. The misdiagnosis caused plaintiff to become comatose and nearly die.
- Summary judgment obtained against a famous comedian suing for legal malpractice against his former attorneys, arising from the attorneys’ representation of the comedian in the comedian’s bitter, protracted, and highly-publicized divorce from his wife.
- 12-0 defense verdict following two-week jury trial in Los Angeles for insurance agent client who allegedly defamed plaintiff by calling it a fraud to plaintiff’s large business client. Plaintiff’s business client thereafter cancelled Plaintiff’s multi-million dollar contract for services.
- Defense verdict in a week-long jury trial in downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiffs claimed our insurance agent Client failed to procure adequate auto coverage for them and that they only became aware of the inadequacy of coverage after Plaintiffs were involved in an auto accident, hit a pedestrian, and the pedestrian sued Plaintiffs.
- 12-0 defense verdict in a three-day jury trial in Ventura on a claim against our insurance agent client for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and financial elder abuse by the father-in-law and former insurance client of the agent. Plaintiff claimed that the agent’s failure to notify him that his automobile insurance policy was going to lapse for non-payment and the agent’s advice to Plaintiff to transfer title to his car into the agent’s name while his driver’s license was suspended was done by using undue influence and with an intent to defraud Plaintiff.
- Defense verdict following two and a half week trial in San Diego. Plaintiff was a victim of a vicious stabbing at the University Town Center mall in La Jolla. She claimed that with better security, the attack would not have occurred. Plaintiff claimed that had our security company client advised the mall to implement additional security measures such as better surveillance cameras and signs warning of security in or around the parking structure where plaintiff was attacked, her attacker would have been deterred from attacking her.
- California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, affirms summary judgment, holding that there was no duty owed by the broker client to a general contractor to procure for the broker’s client (a subcontractor), a GL policy which insured against claims against the subcontractor’s independent contractors.
- Superior Court’s ruling in a construction defect case affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Appellant general contractor, was precluded from joining our client, an HVAC subcontractor, into the arbitration it had with homeowners pursuant to an unsigned subcontract agreement and despite our client’s initial participation in the arbitration prior to our retention.