Wrongful death trial against Rebecca Grossman delayed for lead defender's exit

An upcoming civil trial in a nearly five-year-old wrongful death case against socialite Rebecca Grossman was continued from January to April on Thursday after defense lawyers at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP said this week they did not have a trial-ready attorney.

Despite fierce objections from Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP partner Brian J. Panish, who accused the defense and its insurers of engineering last-minute delay tactics in a case stemming from a fatal 2020 crosswalk collision that killed two children, Superior Court Judge Huey P. Cotton granted the defense's request and delayed the trial to April 13.

At the hearing - which was supposed to be the final pre-trial conference in the case - Lewis Brisbois said it had since lined up partner Esther P. Holm to take over trial duties for the defense as long as the Jan. 5 trial date got pushed to April.

Holm will take over from longtime Lewis Brisbois partner Dana A. Fox, who left the firm weeks before the original scheduled trial date. Fox announced he will be joining plaintiffs' firm BD&J PC in January as a partner.

"Why is this court going to let Mr. Fox and Lewis Brisbois, the largest defense firm in California, keep moving their case and denying [the plaintiffs] their right to justice?" Panish asked Cotton. "I've been a lawyer for 40 years. I can explain a lot of things. I can't explain this."

At issue was whether California Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.310, the state's five-year deadline for bringing civil cases to trial, could be extended to accommodate the defense's time request. Under the statute, if a case is not brought to trial within that period - and the five-year clock has not been paused under the law - dismissal is mandatory.

At the hearing, represented by McNeil Tropp & Braun LLP partner Jeff I. Braun and Lewis Brisbois partner Laurie Stayton, the defense argued the five-year deadline in the case had been paused by a 66-day stay in early 2024, which lawfully allowed the judge to push the trial in this instance.

Panish immediately objected to being asked to waive the statute and framed it as his clients' right, not something a court could compel.

"There is a reason the Legislature put a five-year limit on these cases ... to prevent exactly this kind of delay," Panish said. "This is a charade, and the justice system is failing my clients."

Panish and other attorneys at his firm represent the parents of Mark and Jacob Iskander, who were struck and killed about five years ago while crossing a street in Westlake Village. The civil lawsuit accuses Grossman, her husband and a man accused of racing her at the time of causing the two children's deaths. Iskander et al. v. Grossman et al., 21STCV01600 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 28, 2021).

In a related criminal proceeding, Grossman was convicted last year of two counts of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. The People of the State of California v. Rebecca Grossman, LA093990 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 30, 2020).

Before finalizing his trial date decision, Cotton said he understood the plaintiffs' frustration and acknowledged the burden that the delay placed on both the plaintiffs' family and their attorneys. "It's unfortunate, but I think it's the right thing to do," the judge said.

He said he viewed the sudden loss of Fox as the defense's lead trial counsel as a genuinely unexpected event and found it unreasonable to expect a replacement lawyer to be ready to handle the case on the existing schedule.

The judge cited the scope of the litigation - including dozens of depositions, extensive exhibits and an estimated 10-week trial period - and said allowing new trial counsel additional time to prepare was necessary to ensure a fair proceeding.

"This is absolutely unexpected that counsel both removed himself from a case, at this late hour, and go to the plaintiffs' side of the bar," Cotton said, noting the defense was asking that Holm be given "essentially 60 days to get herself up to speed."

However, Panish disputed the judge's analysis of the case at this stage.

"This case will get thrown out and then we'll get sued," Panish said, claiming Cotton's ruling amounted to "bending over backwards" for the defense while the plaintiffs, he argued, continued to suffer from repeated delays in getting their case to trial.

The hearing ended with extended argument over jury instructions, motions in limine and whether the defense intended to pursue comparative negligence theories that seemingly shifted blame to the victim children or their parents - something the judge immediately denied.

"I can't, in good conscience, see a basis for blaming these kids," Cotton said at one point.

After the hearing, Panish said in an interview outside the courtroom that he was disappointed with the judge's decision.

"We're disappointed that the court continued the trial. Our clients have been waiting forever for justice, and there will be no closure until they have the trial," Panish said. "The day of reckoning is delayed but coming."

The defense attorneys declined to comment.

In several declarations regarding Fox's departure, the defense attorneys said it was "both unexpected and devastating" - a point Panish questioned to the judge several times at Thursday's hearing.