(323) 658 8077

Arash Homampour - Trial Warrior

Arash Homampour - founder of Homampour Law Firm

Arash Homampour - founder of Homampour Law Firm

From his earliest days as a lawyer, Arash Homampour has thought big.

“My phrase was always like, ‘I’m Kobe Bryant, and you just don’t know it. Give me the ball and watch and see what happens,’” Homampour said.

Just in case you don’t get the point, he adds: “The ball would be a metaphor for a larger case.”

Homampour started his Sherman Oaks-based personal injury firm, The Homampour Law Firm PC, in 1993. He said he only handles high-value cases involving “really big issues and big damages.”

“The way we’re set up, it’s the most efficient use of our time and we make the biggest impact,” Homampour said. “We’re not a volume practice. We only handle a limited number of cases at one time.”

The firm, comprised of Homampour and six associates, pursues every case with the expectation it will go to trial.

“I’ve sat both behind and next to Arash in trial. One thing about his demeanor is that he’s relaxed, clearly in his element, but with razor sharp focus,” said the firm’s managing attorney, Farzad Yassini.

Nearly all of the firm’s cases come from other attorneys who “realize they are not experienced enough or they do not have the financial ability, or both, to litigate the case,” Homampour said.

“It’s like, if you’re a heart surgeon and you’re doing heart surgery and you’ve got this one specific type of heart surgery that only like five doctors can do ... you go to [one of those specialists]. That’s how we are,” he said.

Homampour said he he counts himself among a tiny cadre of elite trial lawyers that other lawyers turn to for help with big cases. This tiny group has the talent, the experience and the financial resources to get the best possible result, he said.

“Attorneys know that there are basically five of us. It’s like Nick Rowley, Arash Homampour, Brian Panish, Gary Dordick and Mike Alder,” he said.

“There are some others,” he added. “I’m not denigrating anyone else.”

In 2015, Homampour obtained a $59.3 million jury verdict on behalf of the survivors of Amy Shinedling, who was killed in a house fire started when a Sunbeam space heater’s auto shut-off mechanism failed to trigger.

“The family had left clothing within three feet of the heater, and that clothing started the fire, which ultimately killed the mom,” Homampour said.

Homampour said Sunbeam put a “safety device that only works in non-radiant heaters, in a radiant heater, and then marketed it [as having] an auto-safety shut-off on the box and in the manual."

Homampour said he so thoroughly researched the issue that by the time the case went to trial, he knew the hazards and safety problems involved with Sunbeams's heaters better than its top safety engineer.

"I got the national safety engineer to admit that they knew the safety device may not work, and that the consumer does not know that. And I got the actual product engineer responsible for the product to admit the consumer has an expectation that this heater would turn off in a fire," he said. Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., 12-CV438 (C.D. Cal., filed March 27, 2012).

“That’s a perfect example of what we do,” said Homampour, whose favorite aspects of being in trial are “extracting the truth” and “passionate domination of the courtroom.”

“It’s a subtle one, sometimes people don’t even see it or feel it, but I feel like I’m in control. In a good way. I’m making a difference. Basically massaging facts and witnesses and documents and all that stuff, towards an end, just result,” he said.

Appellate attorney Jeffrey I. Ehrlich handled three appeals for Homampour last year and describes the attorney as “one of the few trial lawyers who often does his own appellate work, and enjoys it.”

“I don’t know that I’ve ever seen another trial lawyer that is as emotionally invested in each case that he tries,” he said.

Homampour is able to see the big picture of how a case fits together in a way that very few lawyers can do, Ehrlich said.

“Everything he did indicated that he had a strategy that he thought out and for each move. It wasn’t that particular move he was making, but he saw it five moves ahead and saw how everything connected,” Ehrlich said.

Homampour got his start doing personal injury work for a lawyer he clerked for while attending Southwestern Law School.

“He retired and gave me about 30 very small personal injury cases involving dog bites or slip and falls. ... And, I found that I liked helping people, I liked making a difference, even on a small scale,” Homampour said.

But he was eager to move to bigger cases.

According to mediator and attorney Jeffrey L. Krivis, Homampour has got the “wherewithal to try any case that’s out there, but he’ll do the right thing for his client.”

In another case, Homampour represented Carlos Madrigal, a motorcyclist who was struck by an Allstate Insurance Co.-insured driver and rendered paraplegic.

Although the driver had $100,000 policy limit, Allstate offered Madrigal $34,000.

“By Allstate refusing to pay the $100,000, that opened up the policy of bad faith,” Homampour said, “our position was that, Allstate is now liable for whatever the verdict is.”

Allstate had the street shut down and hired stuntmen and cameramen to reenact the crash — arguing the accident was Madrigal’s fault.

Homampour used the reenactment to his advantage.

“They made this $500,000 graphic that turned out to help my case because it showed that, if the guy had looked in his right hand mirror, or his rearview mirror, he would have seen Madrigal the entire time, up until the time he turned and ran him over and turned him into a paraplegic,” he said. Madrigal v. Allstate Insurance Co., 14-CV04242 (C.D. Cal., led June 2, 2014).

“In every case we have that ‘a-ha moment’ where I take something they did, turn it around and show that, not only are they trying to deceive the jury, but the truth still is there and we’re ex- tracting it,” Homampour said.

Scott E. Boyer, an associate at the firm, said, “The great thing about the firm and working for Arash, is that there is truly a team effort to obtain the best results for our clients who have been injured and wronged.”

Personal injury attorney Gary A. Dordick describes Homampour as, “the most interesting man alive, or at least in the legal community.”

“Just like [that] commercial,” Dordick said, adding that, besides being one of the top trial lawyers in town, Homampour is a well-respected DJ.

Homampour said he believes it is critical to have a life balance.

“I love music, I make music, I DJ ... Music is like oxygen to me, if I didn’t have music I wouldn’t know what to do,” said Homampour, who has DJ’d at the Avalon Hollywood “at 1 or 2 a.m.”

“I could DJ earlier times, the thing is, I’m so detail oriented that I’m not going to do a set for a different crowd at 10 p.m. unless I’m like 100 percent prepared, because I have to do it perfectly,” he said, adding that it’s hard to find the time to prepare “in the context of somebody who has a very busy trial calendar.”

Tech house is his favorite subgenre, but he plays generic electronic dance music “because a lot of people need to have vocals,” and occasionally rap “because it’s LA and people like rap.”

A good trial lawyer has the ability to get to the heart of the matter and connect with people through storytelling, Homampour said.

“I don’t think my talent in that area is limited to trials,” said Homampour, who is writing a screenplay.

“I’ve seen so many interesting things occur in life that the screenplay is just an expression of me and trying to tell a compelling story that is interesting and fun and makes people think,” he said. “I want to try my hand in writing a story that is compelling for people.”

The same way he is compelling in trial.

“This is it. Trial law. I found the perfect, perfect career and I’m just ecstatic that I found this,” said Homampour, who even has a tattoo on his forearm that reads: “Trial Warrior.”

Originally published in Supplement to the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, November 6, 2017
— Skylar Dubelko

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$8,000,000 Auto Versus State / Dangerous Public Property

$8,000,000 Auto Versus State / Dangerous Public Property

$8,000,000

In March, 2014 Attorney Arash Homampour settled an Auto versus State / Dangerous Public Property case for $8 million against the Defendant.

Incident

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at approximately 3:20 a.m., Plaintiff, an accountant, was driving home from work and traveling on the Venice on-ramp to get onto the I-10 eastbound Santa Monica Freeway. Plaintiff's vehicle veered to the right for reasons unknown and went down a steep embankment where Plaintiff hit a tree and sustained life altering injuries...

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

KCET | Cycle Of Disrepair

KCET | Cycle Of Disrepair

Los Angeles has some of the worst streets in America and the degradation and disrepair is costing the city millions in costly personal injury claims. What's being done to fix L.A.'s roadways and stop the costly litigation?

Due to our success in litigating these types of cases with the City, Arash was interviewed for this video piece by SOCAL Connected on KCET.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$2,000,000 Individual Versus Business / No Flotation Device

$2,000,000 Individual Versus Business / No Flotation Device

$2,000,000

In October, 2016 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer settled an Individual versus Business / No Flotation Device case for $2 million against the Defendant.

On Sept. 5, 2011, Plaintiff, and his wife, rented a canoe from Defendant to use at Shaver Lake in Fresno. While boating around the lake the canoe capsized and Plaintiff's wife drowned. Both Plaintiff and the Decedent had signed written waivers of liability, and had been offered, but rejected life vests before they used the canoe...

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

Framing Key Evidentiary Issues Before Trial

Framing Key Evidentiary Issues Before Trial

Framing is the lens through which we interpret issues. All cases have one or more key evidentiary issues. Framing those issues before trial can either eliminate the potentially damaging “evidence” that is (or should be) inadmissible or it can permit the introduction of other evidence necessary to see the whole picture.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$2,500,000 Auto Versus Auto / Dangerous Roadway

$2,500,000

In October, 2016 Attorneys Arash Homampour, Scott Boyer settled an Auto versus Auto / Dangerous Roadway case for $2.5 million against the Defendant and the State of California.

Defendants

The Defendant contended that the public property that the Plaintiff's vehicle crashed into was not a dangerous condition and that the other drivers’ carelessness was the cause of the collision.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 10.01.50 AM.png

Incident Location

The As-Built plans for the subject location make it clear that the Defendant oversaw the design and construction of the subject location. The location and all of its features were designed and built by the Defendant in approximately 1978. Defendant admits that there have been no changes to the location since it was built.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 10.13.45 AM.png

 

Westbound SR 118 at the incident location is a 4 lane freeway with a 3 lane connector ramp to Interstate 5, 2 lanes which go to southbound I-5 and 1 lane to northbound I-5.

Between the lanes of westbound SR 118 and the I-5 connector ramps there is a gore area. A gore area is defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual as “The area immediately beyond the divergence of two roadbeds bounded by the edge of those roadbeds.” Within this gore area is a large sign post which has guide signs that span over the lanes of the I-5 connector ramp. Around the pole is a metal beam guardrail.

Between the westbound travel lanes of SR 118 and the guardrail is an asphalt concrete curb or “dike”. The dike is approximately 10 feet north of the number 4 SR 118 travel lane. This ten foot width is a paved shoulder for emergency use. This dike is approximately 6 inches high and at least 5 feet away from the guardrail.

Incident

This tragic two-vehicle accident occurred on westbound State Route (“SR”) 118 on November 18, 2012. At the time, Plaintiff's mother was driving a 2001 Kia Rio in the number 4 lane. The Plaintiff, a minor, was a passenger in the back seat on the left hand side .

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 10.13.31 AM.png

Plaintiff's vehicle came into contact with Defendant's vehicle during a lane change, causing her vehicle to move out of the traffic lanes to the north toward the gore area where there was a dike, guardrail and post. Plaintiff's vehicle struck the dike and then the guardrail which caused her vehicle to leave the roadway and become airborne until the roof of the vehicle struck the post, killing Plaintiff's mother instantly.

Defendant Caltrans designed and otherwise had jurisdiction over SR 118 at the incident location. The dike/guardrail/post design configuration that Defendant constructed and maintained at the location violated Defendant’s own design manual and acted to vault Plaintiff's vehicle directly into a 12,210 pound post of structural steel. Thankfully, Plaintiff survived the harrowing ordeal with only minimal injuries. But now he faces the life ahead of him without the mother he loved.

Result

The Homampour team were able to show evidence that the State of California was liable for the configuration of the curb, guardrail and pole, claiming it was dangerous and created a trap which caused the death of the Plaintiff's mother. Although this allowed the Homampour team to secure $2.5 million for the Plaintiff, it can not replace the loss of his mother


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

Juror Bias - What To Do?

Juror Bias - What To Do?

Don’t freak out. But, at trial, justice will be dealt by 12 total strangers. Effective voir dire enables you to identify bad jurors for your client’s case, while simultaneously communicating and gauging receptiveness to trial themes. It also allows you to tap into the bias most of us have for people/corporations/entities that violate the law, cause harm and don’t accept full responsibility.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$1,875,000 Auto Versus Pedestrian

$1,875,000

In May 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour & Scott Boyer successfully settled an Auto versus Pedestrian case for $1.875 million for the failure of a driver to yield to a pedestrian.

The Plaintiff, a grandmother of three, had a job and life that she loved. Prior to the incident, she was active and enjoyed the housekeeping job that she had had for many years. However, all of that changed when she was struck by the Defendant's vehicle while she was using the cross-walk to cross the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd and Pacific Ave. in the City of Manhattan Beach. The plaintiff was hospitalized from injuries caused from the auto striking her as she crossed the street within a lined crosswalk.

Defendants

Defendant was employed at a nearby school in Manhattan Beach. At the time of the incident, Defendant was traveling from her place of employment  to another school in Torrance to attend a breakfast for educators. Defendants do not dispute that Defendant was acting in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the incident.

The Defendants acknowledged that the driver was negligent and one of the causes of the accident. The Defendants also contended that the arrangement of the intersection and crosswalk hindered the visibility of pedestrians while in the crosswalk and this hindrance prevented the Defendant from clearly seeing the plaintiff.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.12.30 AM.png

Incident Location

The incident occurred in the crosswalk at the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Pacific Avenue in Manhattan Beach. Manhattan Beach Blvd. is an eastbound/westbound City street consisting of four lanes, with two lanes in each direction. Pacific Avenue is a northbound/southbound City street consisting of two lanes, with a single lane in each direction. There is not a separate left hand turn lane for vehicles wanting to turn left from southbound Pacific Avenue on to eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd. The intersection is signal controlled in all four directions.

The subject crosswalk extends from the southeast corner to the northeast corner of the intersection. The crosswalk is clearly marked and there is a crosswalk signal located on both the southeast and northeast corners of the intersection. In addition, on the southeast corner of the intersection, there is a sign facing southbound traffic on Pacific Avenue which reads, “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians”.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.13.01 AM.png

Incident

The incident occurred on October 29, 2014. Defendant left her place of employment at approximately 8:45 a.m. and intended to head to the breakfast event at a nearby school which started at 9:00 a.m. Defendant traveled south on Pacific Ave. for a few minutes before she came to a red light at the intersection with Manhattan Beach Blvd. She was in the number one lane intending to turn left on to eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd.

Defendant drew her route as follows:

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.13.25 AM.png

When the light turned green, the vehicle in front of Defendant went straight through the intersection. There was not any traffic heading north on Pacific Ave. and Defendant began her left turn. As Defendant made her left turn, she was looking east toward Sepulveda Blvd. which was three full blocks east of Pacific Ave. and was the intersection at which she needed to make her next turn. Defendant described the traffic as backed-up on eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd.

At the same time, Plaintiff, was walking in the crosswalk, intending to travel from the southeast corner of the intersection to the northeast corner. Plaintiff had previously activated the crosswalk signal which, as the witnesses also stated was illuminated before she entered the intersection via the marked crosswalk.

Unfortunately, Defendant continued to make her left turn as Plaintiff crossed the intersection in the marked crosswalk and Defendant struck Plaintiff with her vehicle. Per the eyewitness accounts, after Plaintiff was struck by Defendant's vehicle, she fell to the ground and rolled several times before coming to rest near the south curb line of ManhattanBeach Blvd. Prior to the impact, witnesses did not hear brakes squeal and no skid marks or brake marks were noted on the asphalt. Plaintiff had no recollection of Defendant's vehicle striking her, and the next thing she recalled after stepping off the curb to use the crosswalk was waking up in the hospital.

After the impact, witnesses observed that Plaintiff had an open wound to the back of her head, she appeared to not be conscious and the only sign of life was a gurgling out of her mouth. There was a large amount of blood loss and blood was coming out of Plaintiff's mouth. According to the witnesses, Plaintiff did not appear to gain consciousness before the paramedics transported her to the hospital. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered a concussion and a number of orthopedic and other injuries.

The Result

The Homampour team were able to deduce that the Defendant, who was driving to a work-related event at the time of the accident, made an unsafe left turn and did not yield to the Plaintiff in the marked crosswalk, thus resulting in the favorable settlement for the plaintiff of $1.875 million. The team also contended that the Defendant’s employer was vicariously liable since she was heading to a work event.


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$4,500,000 Auto Versus Truck

$4,500,000 Auto Versus Truck

In April 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer settled a particularly tough Auto versus Truck case for $4.5 million against the City of Los Angeles.

Plaintiff, a 53 year old man (at the time of incident), had a great career and life that he loved. Prior to the incident, he was active and enjoyed working as a union truck driver for television and motion pictures. However, all of that changed when Defendants failed to use due care by parking their City tractor and 43 foot long trailer illegally in the middle of Los Feliz Blvd.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

Motorcycle Vs. Van - $14,250,000

$14,250,000

In April 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer successfully obtained a $14.25 million dollar pre-lawsuit settlement for the wrongful death of a 53 year old motorcyclist who left behind a loving wife and three children.

An experienced rider, the decedent was navigating the carpool lane on CA I-105 when he was hit by the defendant driving a rental van.  The defense contended that decedent travelled through the double yellow lines without showing due care and was therefore liable for the accident.  Not only that, the defense disputed the nature and extent of the damages claimed.

Through impeccable efforts, gathering of eye-witnesses statements and utilizing the latest accident reconstruction techniques, the Homampour team was able to demonstrate that it was in fact the defendant who made the unsafe and illegal move across the double yellow lines, thus colliding with decedent and causing his fatal injuries.

The Homampour team was also able to ascertain that the defendant was working for her employer at the time, making them vicariously liable for the incident.  While this enabled the Homampour team to secure a sizeable award for the family, it can never replace their loving husband and father.


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658 8077 or toll free at 800-597-8543. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.