Jillian L. Dinehart

Jillian’s Motion to Dismiss was affirmed on appeal after the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff had sued a non sui juris entity by suing a county department in a personal injury suit.  The Plaintiff initially filed suit against the department, and later dismissed without prejudice to allow more time to develop Plaintiff’s medical records.  When he refiled his suit, he again named a county department as the defendant.  Jillian filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that a county department does not have the capacity to be sued.  Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and named the county.  Jillian then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint arguing that the plaintiff was outside of the statute of limitations and that the change in defendant could not relate back to the originally filed suit.  Plaintiff’s argument that naming the department was merely a misnomer and that the Amended Complaint should relate back to the original filing failed and the trial court dismissed the case.  After oral argument, the appellate court affirmed the decision.

In 2023, Jillian went to trial in a motor-vehicle accident case in which she represented a driver that had died while the case was pending.  There was also a large, financially successful, corporate co-defendant represented by other counsel.  The plaintiff had sustained a broken arm in the accident that was surgically repaired.  Jillian’s client had admitted liability, so the case was solely to be heard on the value of the injury, and the liability of the corporate co-defendant.  Likely counting on the deep pockets of the co-defendant, the Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand was not rationally related to the injury or in the realm of similar verdicts in the region.  During the first day of trial, Jillian formed a clear rapport with the jury panel, often engaging in friendly banter with the potential jurors about their own experiences in car accidents, injuries similar to the plaintiff’s, and the social impact of surgical scars.  This rapport was in direct contrast to a very dry voir dire by plaintiff’s counsel and was bolstered by a similarly friendly voir dire by the co-defendant’s counsel.  The parties completed their opening statements and returned to court in the morning, at which time the plaintiff asked to engage in settlement discussions.  As a result of Jillian’s trial performance, the case settlement for $1.5 Million less than the plaintiff’s demand the day before trial.