Vlad Ghenciu

Top rated Personal Injury attorney in Los Angeles, California

V|R Ghenciu Attorney at Law, A Prof Corp.
Vlad Ghenciu
V|R Ghenciu Attorney at Law, A Prof Corp.

Practice Areas: Personal Injury; view more

Licensed in California since: 2013

Education: Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Languages Spoken: English, Romanian

Selected to Rising Stars: 2021 - 2024
Free Consultation

V|R Ghenciu Attorney at Law, A Prof Corp.

1644 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Visit website

Details

Vlad Ghenciu, an American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) member, trial lawyer practicing personal injury litigation in Los Angeles, California, has over ten years of experience practicing law. He focuses his practice exclusively on personal injury including car crashes, auto-pedestrian accidents, trip & slip and falls.

Mr. Ghenciu, has tried 14 civil jury trials, 12 of which a jury has reached a verdict.  The most recent civil jury trial to verdict case was in December 2023, the first civil jury trial Mr. Ghenciu tried to verdict was in June 2018, when he worked as staff counsel at Allstate Insurance Company in Glendale, California.  I

In January 2024, Mr. Ghenciu had honor to the admitted as a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), which is an organization of both civil plaintiff and defense lawyers, and judges, that is dedicated to the preservation of the 7th Amendment right to a civil trial by jury.  The minimum qualification of to be considered for admission are trying 10 civil jury trials to verdict, all as lead counsel, as well as being sponsored by two ABOTA members.  Mr. Ghenciu is a member of the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Fighting aggressively for the rights of his clients, Mr. Ghenciu has a long record of obtaining numerous successful verdicts and settlements on their behalf. He understands the impact of being injured as a result of someone else’s negligent and careless actions.  Mr. Ghenciu is a zealous advocate for his clients’ rights. 

Graduating cum laude, Mr. Ghenciu has a Bachelor of Science degree in international politics from the Georgetown University's, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. He earned his Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. While in law school, Mr. Ghenciu served as a certified law clerk for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where he tried a felony criminal jury trial to verdict.

Mr. Ghenciu completed a training program at the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles’s (CAALA) Plaintiff Trial Academy (PTA), a civil jury trial advocacy training clinic. He also completed a criminal jury trial advocacy program held by the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office’s, the "Academy of Justice.”

Mr. Ghenciu’s work experience includes serving as an intern for a prominent U.S. Senator who was at that time, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is admitted to practice throughout the state of California. Active in his community, Mr. Ghenciu serves as president of The Romanian-American Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles Chapter, since July 2019., having been elected to a full term in November 2020 and re-elected in December 2022.

Mr. Ghenciu is a member of The State Bar of California, the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA), and was a member of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC). Recognized for his remarkable legal work, Mr. Ghenciu has an “Excellent” rating by Avvo.

Mr. Ghenciu has five published verdicts with Verdict Search, Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 19STCV39966 ($3,000,000.00 settlement before plaintiffs' rebuttal argument began); Kashani, et al v. The Dominguez Firm, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 19STCV27237, and Keonnii Ashman v. Fred Weiss, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: BC710203, Jaime Santos v. Jose Manuel Garcia, Jr. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 18STLC15199, Jose Munoz v. MariCarmen Yin and Aroldo Yin, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 20STCV46424.  TopVerdict.Com also recognized the work of Mr. Ghenciu and Mr. Gabriel H. Avina, Esq., in Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles, 19STCV39966 with No. 9 for 2022 settlements in California

 

Practice areas

Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff

Focus areas

Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury - Plaintiff, Premises Liability - Plaintiff

  • 100% Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff

First Admitted: 2013, California

Professional Webpage: https://www.ghenciulaw.com/attorney/

Pro bono/Community Service:
  • President, Romanian-American Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles. This non-profit organization was founded in September 2019 and is part of the New York based, Romanian-American Chamber of Commerce, founded in 1990 by attorney Mark Meyer
  • -Vice President, Viitorul Roman Cultural Aid & Society, from May 29, 2022 to April 24, 2023 https://viitorulroman.com/ Viitorul Roman seeks to be the premier organization for promoting the Romanian cultural heritage throughout Southern California and beyond.  Our mission statement is to actively develop quality programs to enhance the stature of Romanian-Americans and the global image of the motherland by addressing the cultural, social and professional needs of its members, facilitate their participation in Society’s activities and promote the growth of its membership.
Transactions:
  • While in private practice, I have counselled clients on contract drafting and corporate formation
Educational Background:
  • I graduated from Georgetown University, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, cum laude (in three years), in 2007 with a Bachelors of Science in Foreign Service.  My major was International Politics. I interned for U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in the spring of 2005, while he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I completed law school at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, earning a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) in December 2012, 2007
Bar/Professional Activity:
  • I became a licensed member of the State Bar of California on December 4, 2013.  My State Bar number is 292127. I am a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA), and organization that I was a member while I was in law school and until I became a insurance defense attorney at Allstate Insurance Company. I rejoined CAALA in October 2018 when I went back to the plaintiffs' litigation. From around June 2017 to September 2018 I was a member of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, ASCDC, while I was staff counsel at the Law Offices of Gregory J. Lucett, staff counsel to Allstate Insurance Company in Glendale, California, 2013
Representative Clients:
  • I have represented mostly plaintiffs in personal injury cases, specifically car accidents and trip and fall/slip and fall accidents. In 2019, I obtained for Brittany Jones, a victim of a head on car accident collision a jury verdict with costs that was over four times the last offer of the insurance company that insured the Defendant, 2019
Special Licenses/Certifications:
  • Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) Plaintiffs' Trial Academy (PTA) 6 week intensive civil trial advocacy program taught for former CAAALA president Mike Arias and 2019 president of the California Consumer Attorneys Association. Other presenting attorneys were Gary Dordick, Krista Ramey, Carl Douglas, Arash Homampour, and Bob Simon, 2019
  • Academy of Justice, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, 6 week intensive, invitation only, government funding trial advocacy program taught by then Assistant Senior City Attorney Sue Frauens. Topics were jury selection, opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, closing argument, evidentiary objections, 402 hearings, and ethics. Class was moderated by senior Los Angeles City Attorneys, 2016
Videos:
Honors/Awards:
  • Case Summary  On Dec. 3, 2016, plaintiff Jaime Santos, 46, a truck driver/logistic support worker for BNSF Railway, was driving in Commerce when his compact car was rear-ended by a mid-sized vehicle being operated by Jose Garcia Jr. Santos claimed injuries to his neck and back. Santos sued Garcia, alleging that Garcia was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Garcia admitted fault for the accident. Injury Text: Santos claimed he sustained soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back and mid-back from the subject accident. He claimed muscle spasms, as well. Following the impact, Santos was not able to get out of his vehicle. Paramedics ultimately extricated Santos from the car and took him by ambulance to a hospital, where he underwent blood work. Santos also underwent X-rays on his back and a CT scan to his neck. In addition, he was given pain medications and muscle relaxers, and was sent home the same day. Santos underwent chiropractic care from Dec. 12, 2016, through March 16, 2017. He claimed all of his injuries resolved by the end of this treatment. Santos claimed his chiropractic treatment cost $4,000. However, Judge Mark Borenstein did not allow any of Santos' chiropractic bills into evidence, so the defense's retained chiropractic expert, who came to court, did not testify. Santos sought recovery of $5,704 in past medical expenses, which consisted of $1,304 for his ambulance transport and $4,400 for his hospital bill. Santos also sought $19,000 in damages for his past pain and suffering. He did not seek recovery of future medical expenses or damages for his future pain and suffering. Defense counsel noted that there was very minor property damage to Santos' vehicle, in that the damage was not visible and cost $3,200 to repair. Counsel also noted that Garcia's vehicle had no property damage other than a crunched-in license plate. Thus, defense counsel argued that Garcia's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Santos, and that the jury should return a defense verdict. Garcia's counsel also disputed the nature and extent of Santos' medical treatment, arguing that the subject accident was too minor to warrant any care. Defense counsel maintained that if the jury did award any damages, it should only give Santos $100 for past medical expenses and $1,000 for pain and suffering. Trial Length 2 days Jury Deliberation 45 minutes Jury Poll 8-0 Insurer: Fred Loya Insurance Company Plaintiff Amounts: (Jaime Santos) $ 6,000 Past Medical Cost $ 500 Past Pain Suffering $ 6,500 Plaintiff's Total Award Defendant Expert(s)Gary A. Jacob, D.C.Address: Pacific Palisades, CASpecialty: ChiropracticAward: $ 6,500Award Details:  The jury found that Garcia's negligence was a susbtantial factor in causing harm to Santos. It determined that Santos' damages totaled $6,500., Published Jury Verdict, Jaime Santos v. Jose Manuel Garcia, Jr; , Verdict Search/ 2023 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 2323, 2023
  • In January 2024, I had the honor to the admitted as a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), which is an organization of both civil plaintiff and defense lawyers, and judges, that is dedicated to the preservation of the 7th Amendment right to a civil trial by jury.  The minimum qualification of to be considered for admission are trying 10 civil jury trials to verdict, all as lead counsel, as well as being sponsored by two ABOTA members.  I am a member of the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates., American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), Member, https://la-abota.org/, 2024
  •  Jose Munoz v. MariCarmen Yin and Aroldo Yin, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 20STCV46424. Plaintiff verdict, Defendant's attorney told jury to give plaintiff either 0 due to the car accident not being able to cause any injuries or a little more than $4,000.00.  Plaintiff's verdict for $9,000.00 Defense law firm: Gates Gonter Guy, et al, San Diego, California, Jesse Allen, Esq., Published Verdict, Motor Vehicle Accident, Jury Trial, Verdict Search, 2023
  • Keonni Ashmann v. Fred Weiss; 2022 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 2727 BC710203February 18, 2022Headline: Plaintiff claimed crash caused need for pain managementPublished Date: April 12, 2022Topic: Motor Vehicle - Left Turn - Motor Vehicle - Intersection - Motor Vehicle - Multiple Vehicle - Motor Vehicle -Question of LightsInjury: back, other, chiropractic, lumbar facet injuryPractice Area: Civil Procedure; Torts; Transportation LawState: CaliforniaCourt: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los AngelesPlaintiff CounselVlad R. GhenciuFirm Name: V|R Ghenciu Attorney At LawAddress: Los Angeles, CAPlaintiff Name: (Keonnii Ashman) Defendant CounselDaniel P. TusaFirm Name: Bretoi, Lutz & SteleAddress: Long Beach, CAJudge: Stephen M. MoloneyCase Summary On Dec. 18, 2017, plaintiff Keonnii Ashman, 28, a cybersecurity professional, was driving west on RoscoeBoulevard, in Los Angeles. As she entered the intersection with Winnetka Avenue, the front, passenger side of hercompact vehicle struck the rear of a midsize sedan operated by Fred Weiss, who was making a left turn fromeastbound Roscoe Boulevard onto Winnetka Avenue. Ashman claimed injuries to her back.Ashman sued Weiss, alleging that Weiss was negligent in the operation of his vehicle.According to plaintiff's counsel, Weiss was impeached at trial when he claimed he was wearing his regular glassesat the time of the accident even though Ashman had a cell phone picture of Weiss wearing his sunglasses at thescene. Counsel also noted that Weiss initially stated at trial that the color of the light when he entered theintersection was red, but then said it was green. In addition, plaintiff's counsel noted that Weiss admitted indeposition that the vehicle in front of him was making a left turn also. Accordingly, plaintiff's counsel argued thatWeiss failed to stop and yield at a red light and that, instead, Weiss failed to yield to oncoming traffic and made aleft turn in front of Ashman, causing the crash. Page 2 of 3 Keonni Ashmann v. Fred Weiss; 2022 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 2727 Vlad Ghenciu Defense counsel argued that Ashman was at fault for the accident. Specifically, counsel argued that Weiss pulledinto the intersection and waited for the light for oncoming traffic to turn red before attempting the left turn, but thatAshman ran through the red light on Roscoe Boulevard. Defense counsel further argued that, at best, Ashman hada stale yellow on Roscoe Boulevard. Injury Text: Ashman first presented to her primary care physician at UCLA with complaints of back pain fivedays after the collision. She claimed she sustained a lumbar facet injury at L3-4. Ashman underwent three monthsof chiropractic care and then was sent for an MRI and X-rays, which showed no fracture. As a result, she underwentpain management and ultimately received two sets of facet injections in 2018.Ashman claimed that she could not work the hours she was used to at her job because of her injury. She alsoclaimed that she had trouble focusing at work due to the painkillers she took, which made her drowsy. However,she did not seek recovery for any loss wages and admitted that she can continue to work now.For future medical care, Ashman was allegedly recommended to receive two sets of radiofrequency ablations, 18months apart, at a cost of $18,000 to $19,000.Ashman sought recovery for her past and future medical costs, and past and future pain and suffering.According to plaintiff's counsel, defense counsel disputed Ashman's alleged damages, and told the jury that itshould only award Ashman anywhere from $0 to $2,000.Defense counsel noted that there was no ambulance or paramedics at the scene of the accident and that Ashmandid not go to an emergency room or an urgent care facility on the date of the accident. Counsel also disputedAshman's medical costs and claimed that all of Ashman's treatment after her chiropractic care was only worth$5,000. Defense counsel argued that Ashman's alleged condition should have been resolved after her chiropracticcare and that Ashman should not have had any pain management. Thus, counsel argued that Ashman's treatmentafter her chiropractic care, which consisted of pain management and facet injections, was not reasonable and wasoverbilled. Counsel further argued that because Ashman did not have any disc bulges on her MRI, Ashman couldnot have had pain and, therefore, did not need any treatment.Defense counsel contended that Ashman did not have relief from the facet injections because she did not have 50percent relief on the pain scale. According to plaintiff's counsel, the defense's theory about the pain scale was that ifAshman had relief from the facet injections, Ashman's pain would have gone down from an 8 to a 4 and that ifAshman reported a 6, then the injections were not effective.In response to the defense's pain scale theory, plaintiff's counsel contended that facet pain is not diagnosed byMRIs and that those treating Ashman waited to see if Ashman was still in pain at the end of her chiropractictreatment, which Ashman was, and that Ashman then had a diagnostic first facet injection and waited to see if itreduced her pain. Counsel contended that Ashman reported to her treating physician that the injection did reduceher pain and that as a result, Ashman received the second facet injection.The plaintiff's pain management expert testified that disc bulges usually show degenerative pain, and not facet oracute pain, and that treatment for disc bulges would be epidural injections, which Ashman did not have. Page 3 of 3 Keonni Ashmann v. Fred Weiss; 2022 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 2727 Vlad Ghenciu Trial Length 5 daysJury Deliberation 1 daysInsurer: Mercury Insurance GroupPlaintiff Amounts: ( Keonnii Ashman$ 54,684 Past Medical Cost$ 15,000 Future Medical Cost$ 5,000 Past Pain Suffering $ 74,684 Plaintiff's Total Award )Plaintiff Expert(s)Pejman E. Shirazy, M.D.Address: Encino, CASpecialty: Pain ManagementDefendant Expert(s)Hillel Sperling, M.D.Address: Tarzana, CASpecialty: Orthopedic SurgeryAward: $ 74,684Award Details: The jury found that Weiss was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor incausing harm to Ashman. It determined that Ashman's damages totaled $74,684. www.verdictsearch.com/index.jspCopyright 2022 ALM Media Properties, LLC.All Rights ReservedFurther duplication without permission is prohibited End of Document, Verdict Search, Disputed Liability Car Accident Case, Verdict Alert/ Lexis Nexis, 2022
  • Commendation by City of Lancaster, California, Mayor Rex Parris for $3,000,000.00 settlement of Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 19STCV39966, Commendation, City of Lancaster, California, 2022
  • Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles and Bird Rides Inc; 2022 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 585119STCV39966May 26, 2022Headline: Failure to maintain sidewalk caused paralysis: scooter riderPublished Date: August 07, 2022Topic: Recreation - Scooter - Premises Liability - Tree - Premises Liability - Sidewalk - Government - State andLocal Government - Dangerous Condition of Public Property - - Premises Liability - Negligent Repair and/orMaintenanceInjury: head, skull, deformity, neck, fusion, cervical, brain, traumatic brain injury, internal bleeding, other, crushinjury, spine, surgeries/treatment, decompression surgery, paralysis/quadriplegia, paralysis, quadriplegiaPractice Area: Governments; TortsState: CaliforniaCourt: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, ChatsworthPlaintiff CounselGabriel H. AvinaFirm Name: Law Offices of Gabriel H. AvinaAddress: Los Angeles, CAPlaintiff Name: (Danny Pena)Vlad R. GhenciuFirm Name: V|R Ghenciu Attorney At LawAddress: Los Angeles, CAPlaintiff Name: (Danny Pena)Defendant CounselJustin H. SandersFirm Name: Sanders Roberts LLPAddress: Los Angeles, CANone reportedFirm Name: Sanders Roberts LLPAddress: Los Angeles, CAFelton T. NewellFirm Name: Sanders Roberts LLPAddress: Los Angeles, CA Page 2 of 4 Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles and Bird Rides Inc; 2022 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 5851 Vlad Ghenciu Judge: Randy RhodesCase SummaryOn March 30, 2019, plaintiff Danny Pena, 23, was operating an electric Bird Ride Scooter, which are scooters thatcan be rented in Los Angeles. As he was riding south on a sidewalk that runs along South La Brea Avenue, on theblock between the intersections with West 20th Street and Washington Boulevard, in Los Angeles, he was ejectedfrom the scooter and struck a tree. Pena sustained injuries to his head and neck.Pena sued the owner andmaintainer of the sidewalk, the city of Los Angeles, and the maker of the scooter, Bird Rides Inc. Pena alleged thatthe city failed to repair and/or maintain the sidewalk, creating a dangerous condition.Bird Rides was ultimatelydismissed from the case.Plaintiff's counsel contended that Pena's scooter initially struck a three-inch uplift inthe sidewalk and that the impact caused Pena to be catapulted into air, where Pena's head struck an overhangingbranch of a 6-foot Ficus tree. Counsel argued, through the testimony of the plaintiff's sidewalk expert, that the 3-inch uplift in the sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition of public property, as three-quarters-of-an-inch or lessis considered a trivial defect. Counsel also argued that the tree should be 9-feet high in residential areas and thatthe subject tree's height, with its lower branch, also constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff'scounsel contended that Pena, who is 5 feet 11 inches tall, was 4 inches off the ground while on the scooterbed/platform and that Pena struck the tree branch at an angle. Thus, Pena's counsel argued that the city failed tomaintain the subject area by repairing the sidewalk and removing the subject tree and that the city's failureultimately led to Pena's accident.Defense counsel noted that Pena admitted in his deposition that he drank"one pint to a pint-and-a-half" of Hennessey 80-proof cognac late in the night on March 29, 2019, before theaccident. Cedars Sinai Medical Center ran a plasma test to prepare for emergency surgery, and the test revealedthat Pena had a .094 blood alcohol content. In addition, the emergency room physician and an anesthesiologistclaimed they smelled marijuana on Pena.Defense counsel contended that Pena hit the tree head-on, and thedefense's accident reconstruction/biomechanics expert agreed with how Pena hit the tree. Defense counsel alsocontended that Pena had operated the scooter in the subject area hundreds of times before the date of the accidentand that Pena lost control of the scooter on the subject date because of his impairments.Injury Text: Pena sustained a concomitant crush injury at C6-7, a contrecoup injury caused by a physicaldent/depression in the left side of his head and an internal hemorrhage/bleeding in the right side of his head, whichboth caused a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Emergency medical technicians from the Los Angeles FireDepartment immediately transported Pena to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff'sexpert physiatrist opined that Pena's facets at C6-7 had "skipped." As a result, Pena underwent an immediatespinal decompression and fusion surgery. It was ultimately determined that Pena is paraplegic.Although Penais paralyzed from the waist down, he still feels pain in the legs. However, he has not walked since the date of theaccident and he claimed he would require the use of a wheelchair for the remainder of his life. In addition, plaintiff'scounsel contended that Pena would require a licensed vocational nurse for most of the day.The plaintiff'sexpert economist opined that Pena's past and future economic losses totaled $15 million.Pena sought recoveryof past and future medical costs, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering.Defense counselcontended that Pena should not be awarded anything because of his impairment from alcohol prior to striking thetree head-on and because Pena did not strike an uplift, despite claiming otherwise.The defense's expertmedical examiner, who is also paralyzed, admitted that Pena's pain will be for life and that Pena, like all thosesuffering from spinal cord injuries, is 10 percent more at risk of committing suicide. The expert also admitted thatPena requires in-patient training all over again. However, the expert disputed Pena's need for a licensed vocational nurse.Defense counsel argued that an in-home health aid, such as in-home supportive services, which is state-provided and paid minimum wage, was good enough.On cross-examination, plaintiff's counsel noted that the defense's expert medical examiner testified in deposition that, even being a physician, he thought about suicide. Oncross-examination, the defense's life care planning expert stated that she does not take into account inflation, thatshe only gives generic drug prices, and that she is not saying that Pena's retained physical medicine expert iswrong in his recommended future medical care.Trial Length 0Jury Deliberation 0 Page 3 of 4 Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles and Bird Rides Inc; 2022 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 5851 Vlad Ghenciu Insurer:Plaintiff Amounts: (Danny Pena)Plaintiff Expert(s)Anne Barnes, R.N., C.L.C.P.Address: Glendale, CASpecialty: Life Care PlanningGary Gsell, M.B.A.Address: Shadow Hills, CASpecialty: SidewalksDavid Patterson, M.D.Address: Pomona, CASpecialty: Physical MedicineRoman Garagulagian, Ph.D.Address: Los Angeles, CASpecialty: EconomicsDefendant Expert(s)Joanne Latham, M.A., C.R.C.Address: Simi Valley, CASpecialty: Life Care PlanningThomas Hedge, M.D.Address: Northridge, CASpecialty: Physical MedicineKenneth A. Solomon, Ph.D., P.E.Address: Woodland Hills, CASpecialty: Accident ReconstructionAward: $ 3,000,000Award Details: The parties negotiated a $3 million settlement prior plaintiff's counsel's closing rebuttalargument. www.verdictsearch.com/index.jspCopyright 2022 ALM Media Properties, LLC.All Rights ReservedFurther duplication without permission is prohibited, $3 million settlement before close of trial, disputed liability quadrapeligic/Traumatic Brain Injury Scooter case, Verdict Search, Lexis Nexis, 2022
  • Dentist claimed his practice was owed unpaid lienType: Decision-PlaintiffAmount: $21,576 State: CaliforniaVenue: Los Angeles CountyCourt: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CACase Type:  Contracts - Breach of ContractCase Name: Isaac Kashani, D.D.S., an Individual; and Isaac Kahen Kashani, D.D.S., a Professional Dental Corporation, doing business as Lasting Impressions Spa v. Akay Shiraze, an Individual; the Dominguez Law Firm; and The Dominguez Law Group P.C., a California Corporation, No. 19STCV27237 Date: June 01, 2021 Plaintiff(s):  Isaac Kashani, D.D.S. (Male, 0 Years)  Isaac Kahen Kashani, D.D.S., a Professional Dental Corporation, doing business as Lasting Impressions Spa (, 0 Years) PlaintiffAttorney(s):  Vlad R. Ghenciu; V|R Ghenciu Attorney At Law; Los Angeles CA for Isaac Kashani, D.D.S., Isaac Kahen Kashani, D.D.S., a Professional Dental Corporation, doing business as Lasting Impressions Spa Defendant(s):  Akay Shiraze  the Dominguez Law Group The Dominguez Law Group, P.C. DefenseAttorney(s):  None reported for The Dominguez Law Group, P.C., the Dominguez Law Group Akay Shiraze; pro se for Akay Shiraze Facts: In 2017, plaintiff Isaac Kashani, D.D.S., a dentist, and his practice, Lasting Impressions Spa, agreed to provide Akay Shiraze dental services on a lien because of Shiraze's personal injury lawsuit. Shiraze subsequently signed for the lien and value of services in 2017. The Dominguez Law Firm represented Shiraze in Shiraze's personal injury case, which was litigated. Shiraze subsequently obtained an award. However, Kashani and his practice claimed that the prior lien was not paid. Kashani and the operator of Lasting Impressions Spa, Isaac Kahen Kashani, D.D.S., a Professional Dental Corp., sued Shiraze; the Dominguez Law Firm; and the law firm's operator, The Dominguez Law Group P.C. Kashani and his practice alleged that the defendants' actions constituted a breach of contract. The Dominguez Law Group settled out of the case, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial against Shiraze only. Plaintiffs' counsel contended that Shiraze underwent dental work at Kashani's dental office, but then refused to pay for the work done. Counsel noted that Kashani and the practice had records of when Shiraze came into the office and what work was done each time. Counsel also contended that it took weeks to complete Shiraze's dental work. Shiraze, appearing pro se, initially claimed that no work was done by Kashani. He later claimed that he was not satisfied with the work that was done. Injury: Kashani and his practice claimed that they were owed for the work done on Shiraze. The plaintiffs sought recovery for the unpaid lien. Result: Judge Armen Tamzarian rendered a mixed decision. He found that Shiraze was liable to Kashani's dental practice, but was not liable to Kashani, the individual. Tamzarian determined that the dental corporation's damages totaled $15,500. He also awarded the dental practice costs of the suit in the amount of $2,691.62 and prejudgment interest as of June 1, 2021, in the amount of $2,901.50. Thus, Kashani, individually, recovered nothing from Shiraze, but the dental practice's recovery totaled $21,093.12., Published Verdict From Verdict Search, Verdict Search, 2022
Verdicts/Settlements (Case Results):
  • Tried a 2 day expedited jury trial with no second chair, Defendant disputed substantial factor, meaning whether the rear end collision caused plaintiff (my client's) injuries.  Defendant's attorney told the jury that the rear end collision did not cause the injuries, the jury voted 8-0 in plaintiff's favor and awarded damages in excess of defendant's recommendation.  January 2023, Judge Mark A. Borenstein, Spring Street Courthouse, Jaime Santos v. Jose Manual Garcia, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: 18STLC15199, 2023
  • Tried as first chair with no second chair, car accident trial, December 2023, Jose Enriquez, et al, v. Savannah McCarthy, Orange County Superior Court Case No.: 2020-01166605, Judge Sheila Rocios, presiding, Westminster Courthouse., 2023
  • Tried as first chair with a second chair, car accident trial to jury verdict, Simon Longoria v. Teresa Garcia, September 2023, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 21STCV20135, Judge Thomas Rubinson, presiding, Van Nuys Courthouse. Plaintiff's verdict, below final Defendant's offer, defendant was not able to "defense" the case. Minimal visible property damage on Plaintiff's 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, minimal visible property damage on Plaintiff's Nissan Altima. No airbags deployed on either vehicle, no tow trucks arrived at scene, vehicles able to be driven from the accident scene, no emergency/ hospital treatment., 2023
  • -Tried as first chair with no second chair a car accident trial to jury verdict.  Defendant disputed liability, stating Plaintiff caused the car accident, defendant disputed reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.  Defense verdict.  Martha Arias v. Gregory Clayton, Jr., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 21STCV16894, 2023
  • TopVerdict.Com also recognized the work of Mr. Ghenciu and Mr. Gabriel H. Avina, Esq., in Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles, 19STCV39966 with No. 9 for 2022 settlements in California, 2022
  • Tried as first chair with no second chair, a three-day premises liability jury trial to jury verdict.  Defendant disputed liability, May 2023, Nona Akopyan v. Big Lot Stores, Inc. San Diego County Superior Court Case No.: 37-2021-00019067, Judge Timothy B. Taylor, presiding, Hall of Justice Courthouse., 2023
  • Tried as first chair with no second chair, a three day jury trial to jury verdict.  Defendant disputed substantial factor, jury rendered 12-0 plf substantial factor vote, awarded more damages than final defense officer, March 2023, Jose Munoz v. Maricarmen Yin, et al LASC Case No.: 20STCV46424, Judge Richard Burdge, Jr. presiding Spring Street Courthouse., 2023
  • Tried a 7 day jury trial as first chair with a second chair a disputed liability car crash case, Paul Tjhin, Susaina Liem v. Christian Noah Menier-Ruiz, Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30-2019-01091889-CU-PA-CJC before Judge Nathan Scott, Westminster Courthouse, Department W-02, 2022
  • Tried as first chair with no second chair, 5-day jury trial to jury verdict, car crash with both defendant and plf retaining accident recon/bio mech expert witnesses, September 2022: Eduardo Ojeda, Alexis Perez v. Zhuogang Su, LASC Case No.: 19STCV33367. Judge Gregory Alarcon, presiding, Stanley Mosk Courthouse., 2022
  • Kashani, et al v. The Dominguez Firm, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 19STCV27237, Civil Bench Trial, verdict of $21,576.00 on lien of, $32,455.00, 2021
  • $3,000,000.00 settlement before I peformed the plaintiff's rebutall closing argument.   I co-chaired with lead plaintiff's attorney Gabriel Avina, Danny Pena v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV39966.   This case was filed in 2019 by Gabriel Avina, the lead plaintiff's trial and litigation attorney.  , 2022
  • Tried as first chair, with no second chair to jury verdict disputed liability, plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident case, February 2022: Def: Offer 10 days before trial: $30,000.00, for 2 ½ years offer was $10,000.00.  Jury Verdict: $74,684.00 in Spring Street Courthouse, Judge Stephen Moloney, presiding.  Carrier: Mercury Insurance.  Keonnii Ashman v. Fred Weiss, LASC BC710203, 2022
  • $70,000.00 settlement for an injured employee of a airline company against a third party airline at LAX airport, 2017
  • Brittany Jones v. Amirhessam Hemmat, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC672804 Co-first chaired 3 day jury trial in before the Honorable Judge Gabriela Freixes in Chatsworth, California Last Offer from carrier: $25,000.00 Final Judgment Award after 3 day jury trial with costs award $106,000.00, 2019
Industry Groups:
  • Consumer Rights Law

Office location for Vlad Ghenciu

1644 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Phone: 213-435-1669

Selections

4 Years Rising Stars
  • Rising Stars: 2021 - 2024

Additional sources of information about Vlad Ghenciu

Attorney resources for Vlad Ghenciu

Page Generated: 0.062410116195679 sec