Paul R. Johnson

• Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 5th 43 (2026) (reinstating full jury verdict awarding hospital additional $66 million for emergency services to health plan members; rejecting multiple challenges by plan)—argued for plaintiff.
• Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, 118 Cal. App. 5th 644 (2026) (clerk’s notice that case would be deemed dismissed absent certain action triggered plaintiff’s time to serve post-settlement motion for attorney fees in warranty action; motion held untimely)—argued for defendant.
• Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP, 17 Cal. 5th 273 (2024) (beyond complying with statutes and regulations, hospitals have no duty to notify emergency room patients of evaluation & management services fees)—argued for defendant; answered adverse California Attorney General amicus brief.
• Bueno v. Merck & Co., Inc., 746 F. Supp. 3d 853 (S.D. Cal. 2024), Parker v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2024 WL 3974764 (S.D. Cal. 2024) (summary judgment on pharmaceutical-warning-label claims)—argued for defendants. Drug & Device Law blog: “our best trial-level decisions of 2024.”
• L.W. v. Audi AG, 108 Cal. App. 5th 95 (2025) (2–1 split decision holding German automaker defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in California product-liability action)—argued for defendant.
• Salami v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center, 103 Cal. App. 5th 1023 (2024) (beyond complying with certain statutes and regulations, hospitals have no duty to notify emergency room patients of evaluation & management services fees)—argued for defendant.
• County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 5th 1034 (2023) (hospitals may sue healthcare service plans operated by public entities for quantum meruit reimbursement for emergency services provided patients enrolled in plans)—amicus briefing supporting review and on merits for hospitals.
• State ex rel. Rapier v. Encino Hospital Med. Ct., 87 Cal. App. 5th 811 (2022) (affirming for hospital after bench trial; on first impression: Cal. Dept. of Ins. and qui tam relator had no right to jury trial of Insurance Frauds Prevention Act claims)—argued procedural issues for defendants.
• Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson, 70 Cal. App. 5th 796 (2021) (reviewing exclusion of expert opinion de novo, finding hearsay studies “generally accepted” despite FDA criticism, and reversing summary judgment for defendants in talc-product-liability action)—argued for defendants.
• Brown v. McKesson Corporation (Cal. Ct. App. No. B266990, Jan. 26, 2017) (affirming judgment against dozens of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation)—argued.
• Orrell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (9th Cir. No. 14-56845, Oct. 28, 2016) (affirming judgment against hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs based on exclusion of medical expert opinion on general causation)—decided on briefs.
• Non-California-Resident Plaintiffs v. AstraZeneca LP (Cal. Ct. App. B260895, July 15, 2016) (obtaining dismissal of appeal by hundreds of pharmaceutical-product-liability plaintiffs who challenged forum non conveniens dismissal).
• Laguna v. Dole Food Company, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. No. B233497, 2014) (affirming decision to vacate judgment for plaintiffs upon finding fraudulent scheme to assert toxic exposures at Nicaraguan banana farms)—argued for defendant The Dow Chemical Company.
• Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC, 216 Cal. App. 4th 591 (2013) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action)—argued for defendant.
• HH, LLC v. WestLB AG (Cal. Ct. App. No. D060531, 2012) (holding that cross-complaint in real estate financing litigation was not a SLAPP suit)—argued for cross-complainant.
• Enayati v. UOP, LLC (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC430304, 2012) (nonsuit judgment for defendant based on legal standard of care for engineering professionals)—arguments for defendant interspersed over several days during trial.
• Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Insurances Services West, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (2012) (holding that insurance broker did not have ongoing duty to additional insured)—argued for defendant.
• City of Modesto etc. et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company et al. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 98-999345, 98-999643; Cal. Ct. App. No. A134419 et al.) (post-trial motions; appellate matters—$75 million award of punitive damages reduced and then reversed in full).
• Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. App. 4th 170 (2011) (holding successor to Canadian component manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in California product liability action)—argued for defendant.
• Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Fandino, 131 S. Ct. 3088 (June 28, 2011, No. 10-250) (GVR: granting certiorari petition challenging personal jurisdiction, vacating judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light of J. McIntyre).
• J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011) 564 U.S. 873 (British manufacturer not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey product-liability action)—amicus brief for Dow Chemical Canada ULC supporting defendant, asserting insufficiency of stream-of-commerce test.

Paul Johnson briefs and argues appeals—and dispositive motions in trial courts—in civil cases. He has argued before state and federal appellate courts inside and outside California, including before the California Supreme Court and in other precedent cases. For California state appellate practice in particular, Paul brings substantial knowledge and experience developed over four decades. Since 2010, the State Bar of California has certified Paul as a specialist in appellate law.

Paul’s civil-litigation experience includes all phases of appellate-court and trial-court proceedings. He can be consulted on strategy at most any point in the process. Among other pretrial issues, he has litigated personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, state-vs.-federal jurisdiction, and choice of law. His extensive appellate experience includes writ petitions. He has tried cases (both bench and jury), but he has long focused on legal issues and arguments in mass litigations and other large matters. He has litigated posttrial motions. He has been counsel of record on U.S. Supreme Court filings, including amicus briefing and a successful certiorari petition resulting in remand.

Paul has broad substantive-law experience. And he has defended corporations against claims for punitive damages at different stages of litigation.

Paul is a past chair of the Committee on Appellate Courts of the State Bar of California (the successor committee is within the California Lawyers Association). Paul has co-presented on California posttrial and appellate law and procedure; authored and co-authored articles on posttrial motions and the path to appeal; and updated the chapter on posttrial motions for the 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 updates of California Civil Appellate Practice (CEB—Continuing Education of the Bar, University of California).