Kenneth R. Pedroza

COLE PEDROZA LLP

2670 Mission Street
Suite 200
San Marino, California 91108

Tel:  626-431-2787
Fax:  626-431-2788
 


Professional Experience

Mr. Pedroza is an Appellate Specialist, certified by the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization. He is a partner at Cole Pedroza LLP, before which he was a partner in the Los Angeles office of Thelen Reid & Priest LLP. Mr. Pedroza received his education at Stanford University where he studied Political Science as an undergraduate before continuing studies at the University of Arizona College of Law, where he graduated cum laude

Mr. Pedroza has substantial experience in all aspects of litigation. His civil jury trial and arbitration experience focuses upon employment litigation, professional liability claims, and provider reimbursement claims.  Mr. Pedroza 
also regularly handles insurance coverage and bad faith actions. He has been able to litigate these sensitive cases as a zealous advocate, while maintaining an approach that fosters the most efficient resolution of a particular matter.

His appellate practice includes a wide array of civil cases, with an emphasis on medical malpractice and professional liability appeals involving high exposure cases, previously untested issues, or issues involving the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”), and employment cases.

Mr. Pedroza regularly is engaged to assist trial counsel with strategic and tactical decisions in both pre and post-trial matters from an appellate perspective. He provides frequent assistance to defense counsel ranging from jury instructions and motions in limine, to motions for new trial, motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and motions to periodize
the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 667.7. Mr. Pedroza was also identified as a leading attorney in Southern California’s Super Lawyers-Rising Stars 2004-2011, Super Lawyer 2011-2016.

Representative Published Decisions

With appellate experience and success in the California Court of Appeal, California Supreme Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kenny has participated in many cases that have resulted in published decisions that have shaped California law. Some of those representative cases in which he has represented either a party or the interest of Amici, include:

California Supreme Court:

Bird v. Saenz (negligent infliction of emotional distress), Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (Inclan) (elder abuse), North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (Free Exercise defense), Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (value of medical services), Neighbors v. Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Const. Authority (future conditions for EIR), Rashidi v. Moser (settlement offset), Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5), and Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (neglect under the Elder Abuse Act).

California Court of Appeal/9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Perry v. Shaw (medical battery), Cox v. Superior Court (MICRA/collateral source rule), Deocampo v. Ahn (MICRA/Code of Civil Procedure §998), Palmer v. Superior Court (CCP §425.13), Barton v. Alexander Hamilton Life Ins. Co. of America (punitive damages), Trafficschoolonline v. Clark (Gov’t. Claims Act), Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (expert witness testimony), Petrou v. South Coast Emergency Group (H&S §1799.110), Barragan v. Lopez (wrongful life claim), Saxena v. Goffney (medical battery), Ayala v. Arroyo Vista (alternative methods of care), Freedman v. Superior Court (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.13), Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (appealability), Burton v. Cruise (waiver of arbitration), Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (class action right of medical privacy), Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno (Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1), Stinnett v. Tam (constitutionality of Civil Code § 3333.2), Muller v. Shantharam (recovery of attorney’s fees), Perez v. Nidek Co., Ltd. (off-label use of a laser), Chan v. Curran (constitutionality of Civil Code § 3333.2), and Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (arbitration).

Website Builder