Justin Ehrlich

Mr. Ehrlich has been a tenacious advocate representing plaintiffs for fifteen years, and has received multiple seven and eight figure Verdicts, Arbitration Awards, and Settlements that have been featured in the Los Angeles Times, L.A. Daily Journal and many other publications. Mr. Ehrlich has practiced in the areas of products liability, employment, insurance bad faith, elder abuse, and handled countless catastrophic injury cases in addition to complex business cases representing entrepreneurs, fellow lawyers, law firms, private equity firms, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame musicians, and technology companies, among others.
Mr. Ehrlich grew up in Southern California and received his Bachelors in History from the University of California at Los Angeles and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Southern California.
Mr. Ehrlich is on the Executive Board of Cancer Free Generation and works to raise funds for clinical research aimed at eradicating cancer.

Representative Cases

1. Mr. Ehrlich was co-lead counsel in a ground-breaking financial elder abuse case involving the sale of deferred annuities to senior citizens. The case was the first of its kind to go to trial in the country and resulted in a verdict of $18,500,000 which was the 100th largest verdict in the United States in 2006 and the largest verdict on record in the Indio Superior Court, according to attorneys who practice in the area. The case was settled with two of the three defendants and then reversed due to a so-called flaw in the C.A.C.I. approved verdict form. That notwithstanding, based on feedback this firm receives from elder abuse lawyers from all over the country, significant changes were made to the common features of equity indexed deferred annuities following this case, and the case remains a model for elder abuse attorneys with similar cases from around the country who routinely seek Mr. Ehrlich’s advice (and exemplar case documents for their use). The case was tried over eight weeks. Hammermueller v. North American Company for Life and Health Ins., Case. No. INC037361 (2006);

2. Justin was the lead trial lawyer in a medical malpractice case against a healthcare provider where the plaintiff alleged that the client baby was deprived of oxygen during the birth process resulting in permanent brain injury. The healthcare provider claimed the injury was the result of a genetic defect and did not offer a single penny to settle. After a three week Arbitration the Judge issued an Award for the plaintiff of $11,640,000 million and the case later settled for $11,890,000.

3. Justin was the lead trial lawyer for a well-known Los Angeles litigator when his former law firm sued him in connection with his departure in 2006 following the indictment of another firm partner. After a five year battle, the firm received nothing for its claims, but Justin’s client recovered $4,600,000 million on his cross-claims. As one would expect when litigating against a law firm, the case was fiercely litigated. Louis R. Miller v. Christensen, Miller, et al., Case No. BS129231; Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser,Weil & Shapiro, LLP v. Louis R. Miller , AAA No. 72180Y0053006JOIB (2011);

4. Justin represented the Red Hot Chili Peppers in a federal suit involving the use of its famous song and album title A Californication. The case dealt with complex issues in the area of intellectual property, because while a title is generally afforded no copyright or trademark protection, one that achieves a secondary meaning is, under limited circumstances, afforded protection. The case was resolved on a confidential basis following denial of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Anthony Kiedis; Chad Smith; John Frusciante; Michael “Flea” Balzary dba Red Hot Chili Peppers v. Showtime Networks, Inc., et al. – USDC CV 07-08185 DSF (MANx)(rn)(2009);

5. Justin handled a highly unusual and complex matter resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement following the results of the first phase of a trifurcated trial. The settlement was in excess of $1 million over the available insurance policy limit. In phase one of the trial Justin successfully prevented the defendant from asserting the affirmative defense of the exclusive remedy of workers compensation on the grounds of equitable estoppel based on its pre- and post-accident conduct, among other things. Zelman v. United Valet Parking, Inc., et al., Case. No. BC446127 (2013);