• Call Us (805) 444-1766

  • Case Results

    • In January of the year 2005

      several homes in Oak View, CA were threatened by land undercutting and destabilization triggered by a torrential flow of the adjacent Ventura River. Mr. Papay was called to this setting by distressed homeowners, and stood atop the bluff where these homes were sited. He immediately knew what the problem was.

      Mr. Papay perceived that the upstream redirection and downstream constriction of the Ventura River flow was caused by government projects. A flow altering levee saw its damaging effect worsened by a bridge which constricted the downstream river flow. Mr. Papay thus knew the types of scientists and engineers to consult with. Such experts who possessed PhD degrees later came and arrived at the same conclusion as Mr. Papay. Highly technical computer modeling further confirmed this analysis.The problem with the river at this site remained undetermined for the better part of a century, until the day Mr. Papay stood at these damaged homesites in 2005.

      Mr. Papay then precisely and successfully identified the causes of action that were uniquely appropriate when litigating against governments, as dovetailed with unique technical issues. Without legal intervention against powerful governmental entities, these financially weak homeowners would have been forced to absorb massive losses in the value of their homes. After a monumental struggle against a large Los Angeles law firm, Mr. Papay prevailed. The jury and court award of damages to these homeowners totaled 4.4 million dollars. Aikens et al vs. County of Ventura et al

    • In another case,

      a Santa Barbara County landowner suffered losses from burnt oak trees, caused by a fire that started on a golf course owned by a nationally renowned corporate mogul with substantial legal representation. Mr. Papay stepped in at the request of this husband and wife, equipped with knowledge of the unique laws related to tree damage, even damage caused by fire. Many attorneys have and will confess to ignorance in this legal arena, not to mention a complete absence of pertinent technical knowledge. Defendant caused fire destruction of trees results in strict liability, as most attorneys are not aware. Suit was filed and discovery commenced. Before trial, this mogul's insurance company volunteered a cash settlement for these trees ­ in the amount of $450,000.00, following a review of Mr. Papay's analysis by their representatives and attorneys. Those without such unique legal and technical knowledge may have opined that replanting with some nursery trees in the amount of a few thousand, or even mere hundreds of dollars would be legally satisfactory. Importantly, most attorneys would assume that standard negligence liability would apply. Mr. Papay knew different. Taras vs. H. Ty Warner

    • A Moorpark rancher

      was shocked to find that a large portion of his orchard had fallen away, and subsequently continued to slide. A large portion of this citrus orchard was destroyed, together with a paved roadway and other expensive improvements. As a Landscape Architect who had designed the grading, drainage, retaining walls, irrigation systems and roadways as well as the planting of many sites, Mr. Papay knew the cause and significance of these losses. As a professional who knew the value of land restoration and trees ­ even far beyond their mere seedling replacement cost, Mr. Papay understood the tree as well as the fruit harvest losses. Again, Mr. Papay surgically drafted a lawsuit which included the proper laws and legal doctrines, and synthesized this legal analysis with uniquely applicable technical understanding. The defense lawyers filed opposing motions over months, which Mr. Papay successfully rebutted. During the onset of trial, the defendant agreed to pay this farmer a total of $1.25 million dollars to dismiss the lawsuit, which the grateful and relieved farmer accepted. Petrosian vs. Gilpatrick

    • A massive tree fell

      across a roadway in Ventura, CA ­ causing serious personal injuries. The victim here sought legal representation from other attorneys who dismissed his case as invalid, being an "act of God". Later Mark Papay was contacted. Mr. Papay visited the site of the accident, and became immediately aware that a cause of the tree failure was an improperly designed city drainage system and later discovered defective pruning of the subject tree by a landowner. The City and the adjoining insured landowner were sued. After an extensive discovery process, these defendants jointly offered a cash settlement in the amount of 1.5 million dollars, which was accepted. Souby vs. City of Ventura et al