• vcard
  • Education
    • J.D., Loyola Law School-Los Angeles, 1990, Dean's List
    • B.A., University of California-Los Angeles, 1987
  • Court Admissions
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1991
    • U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1990
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1990
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1990
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 1990

David Schultz is certified by the State Bar of California as a specialist is Appellate Law. He brings 30+ years of experience litigating high-exposure cases at trial and before the Courts of Appeal. His broad experience and tenacious approach account for why clients turn to him on their toughest cases and must-win situations. One such case involved a $200 million punitive damage award and $5 million compensatory damage award. David was brought in after trial and drafted motions that resulted in the trial judge vacating the entire verdict, which was affirmed on appeal. David litigates cases in California and has been admitted pro hac vice to litigate and handle appeals in other jurisdictions, including Nevada, Hawaii, Arizona and Utah. He also regularly works with local counsel to represent clients in toxic tort cases filed throughout the United States.  

David's trial and litigation experience shape his approach to handling cases on appeal, where he strives to present a compelling factual story along with well-crafted legal arguments. As lead appellate counsel, he has briefed and argued appeals that have successfully reversed large verdicts with judgment entered for the defendant, and affirmed favorable judgments arising from jury verdicts, directed verdicts, nonsuits, summary judgments, demurrers and terminating sanctions. David's appellate efforts have also resulted in published decisions that assist clients in future cases and in developing long term litigation and business strategies. It is this proactive and creative approach to practicing law that energizes David, as he looks forward to helping clients address the complex legal issues they face.

David has defended claims in:

  • Product liability
  • Toxic torts 
  • Premises liability 
  • Fraud 
  • Business torts 
  • Breach of contract 
  • Breach of warranty

Notable Engagements

  • Obtained affirmance of the judgment after a two month product liability jury trial that resulted in a defense verdict, and plaintiffs raised multiple challenges to evidentiary rulings that excluded former testimony and limited cross-examination of defense experts.
  • Obtained affirmance of summary judgment under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk to preclude plaintiff’s claim for a spinal injury sustained during a high school football game.
  • Obtained affirmance of summary judgment that dismissed plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim based on the statute of limitations in Utah.
  • Obtained affirmance of a nonsuit against a plaintiff's mesothelioma action; Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion, concluding the trial court properly found there was no substantial evidence to support plaintiff’s premises liability claims and the plaintiff could not avoid nonsuit by seeking to contradict his deposition admissions at trial
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of a valve manufacturer against plaintiff's product liability claims for design defect and failure to warn claims
  • Obtained dismissal of plaintiff's product liability claims against a gasket manufacturer, after the trial court granted a motion to apply Michigan law. The application of Michigan law resulted in an order that barred plaintiff's claims for strict liability and punitive damages, and the remaining claims were dismissed while a motion for summary judgment based on Michigan law was pending
  • Obtained full reversal of a multi-million dollar verdict in a personal injury mesothelioma action against a pipe manufacturer, while working with the client's national counsel and in-house legal department to jointly draft the motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict that were granted by the trial court
  • Obtained summary judgment for a security company, dismissing plaintiff’s negligence claim alleging its failure to properly patrol a shopping mall; Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
  • Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s wrongful death action against an international tire and rubber company; Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on the ground the action was barred by the statute of limitations
  • Obtained terminating sanctions to dismiss plaintiff’s product liability action against an auto manufacturer for an allegedly defective air bag system that caused serious injury; Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting the defendant’s motion for termination sanctions, holding the plaintiff had a duty to preserve evidence
  • Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s strict liability, negligence, fraud and interference with prospective business advantage claims, arising from a pet food manufacturer’s nationwide recall that resulted in $50,000,000 of consequential damages; Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims except strict liability. Case was then settled favorably on that sole remaining claim
  • Obtained reversal of a multi-million dollar verdict against an auto manufacturer in a product liability action alleging failure to warn and design defect claims; Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in failing to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff’s action was then ordered dismissed and judgment was entered in defendant’s favor
  • Obtained reversal of a plaintiff’s verdict in a toxic tort action alleging the defendant’s brake system was defectively designed, and the defendant failed to warn of the dangers from working with and around asbestos-containing friction products; Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by not granting the defendant’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Judgment was entered in defendant’s favor
  • Obtained order by the Court of Appeals granting a petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to grant a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a plaintiff’s product liability action against a manufacturer of an allegedly defective passenger restraint system.

Published Cases

  • Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261
  • Izell v. Union Carbide (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962
  • Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68
  • Dannenfelser v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., (D. Haw. 2005) 370 F. Supp. 2d 1091
  • Southwest Pet Products v. Koch Industries, (D. Ariz. 2000) 89 F. Supp. 2d 1115
  • Scheiding v. General Motors Corp., (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 471
  • General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court, (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 580
  • Darden v. General Motors Corp., (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 349
  • General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court, (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 435

Appellate Decisions Reported in Lexis and Westlaw

  • Bridges v. Bellarmine-Jefferson High School, 2018 WL 35569047 
  • Stewart v. Union Carbide, 2017 WL 2954311
  • Murat v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2015 WL 4744455
  • Evans v. CertainTeed Corporation, 2012 WL 4338617
  • Webster v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., 2011 WL 5995928
  • Ohannessian v. Peppy LLC, Quality Security Services, 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 7757
  • Genson v. Legal Options, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 4952
  • Dozier v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 187
  • Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8867
  • Smith v. Fox Hills Buick, 2001 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 1234
text icon Publications & Presentations
Speaker, ASCDC Webinar
November 12, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations

Panel, Perrin Ethical Issues in Discovery

March 2017
eAlerts Updates
December 2016
eAlerts Updates
June 21, 2016
text icon Publications & Presentations
Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation
Perrin Conference
Speaker at nationwide conference; presentation on key appellate decisions and a legal update on asbestos cases pending in California and other states.
March 16-17, 2015
text icon Publications & Presentations
California Premises Liability Law
The Recorder
Drafted a chapter for a California Premises Liability book, which examines theories and defense for claims that originate and extend beyond a landowner’s property.  It also provides an analysis of claims that have national implications, such as "take-home" exposure claims that courts recognize involve significant public policy concerns and a potentially "limitless pool of plaintiffs."  A state-by-state overview is also provided that discusses which courts have precluded or allowed take-home exposure claims to be pursued.

eAlerts Updates
September 4, 2014