ANITA GARCIA v. CITY OF GLENDALE, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC659961.



Attorney John Jahrmarkt is listed by the Los Angeles Superior Court as the attorney for the plaintiff.




He is also listed by the California Court of Appeals as plaintiff's attorney and the one filing the appeal.




According to our read of the Court of Appeals opinion, this is what happened:

Jahrmarkt's client Anita Garcia had a slip and fall accident on a sidewalk at an intersection on August 8, 2016. The accident left her bruised, with abrasions, and damaged her teeth. She took pictures of the scene that day and on following days.

To make a claim against a public entity, such as the City of Glendale, a person must present their client to the government within 6 months. The meant Ms. Garcia's deadline was February 7, 2017.

A demand for payment was made to a private construction company's insurance company. The opinion is not clear about who made the demand or the date, but it is Lawzilla's impression that John Jahrmarkt made the demand for payment and this occurred within six months after the accident.

In a declaration attorney Jahrmarkt said he saw workers and vehicles for the construction company in the photos, and he looked at a picture in Google maps.

After speaking with the insurance adjuster for the construction company Jahrmarkt learned the City of Glendale had its own street construction project.

This conversation was on February 15th - 8 days after the deadline for making a government claim. John Jahrmarkt, Esq., then filed the government claim on February 17th, 10 days after the deadline.

Jahrmarkt then made a request with the court to allow the late claim. The judge denied the request - ruling the attorney was not reasonably diligent in his actions with the six months after the accident. An appeal followed.

The Court of Appeal made this damning statement about John Jahrmarkt's actions:

For more than six months after the accident, no investigation was undertaken other than looking at preexisting photographs and a limited Google search focused on the private entity despite common knowledge that sidewalks and streets are typically owned by public entities, and despite Garcia and her counsel’s awareness that the accident took place across the street from the private entity’s construction site.

In other words, the private construction company was working across the street from where plaintiff fell. It was not where plaintiff had her accident.

It is common knowledge streets and sidewalks are owned by public entities. They are not private.

For more than six months the court suggests all attorney Jahrmarkt did was look at photos and a limited Google search focused on the private construction company (rather than a broader investigation to determine who was responsible for the sidewalk across the street).

The three justices of the court of appeals unanimously agreed with the trial judge that Jahrmarkt's did not act with "reasonable diligence" and his actions as an attorney were not excusable neglect.




The court of appeals then affirmed the trial court's ruling that the claim against the City of Glendale was too late and would not be allowed.

In our opinion what is said by the Court of Appeals shows legal malpractice by attorney John Jarhmarkt.

The court essentially said his actions were inexcusable.

Everyone knows streets and sidewalks are typically owned by public entities. We read the private construction crew he saw in photos was across the street from the accident. He did not attempt to determine who was responsible for the condition of the sidewalk where the accident actually happened.

For more than six months the judge said he was not reasonably diligent and did not reasonably investigate who may be responsible for his client's injuries.

Even worse, the judges said attorneys "routinely" try to find out who is responsible for an accident and to identify as many possible entities as possible to maximize compensation to their client.

This suggests to us that Mr. Jahrmarkt was acting below the standard of care of a typical attorney and was not properly maximizing the potential compensation for his client.

If this is an example of how attorney John Jahrmarkt practices we could not recommend his services.

John Jahrmarkt was admitted to the California Bar in 1994. Bar Number 175569.

Jahrmarkt and Associates
2049 Century Park East Suite 3850
Los Angeles, California 90067

Law School: Benjamin Cardozo School of Law