Over more than 25 years of civil litigation, Jonathan D. Winters has obtained verdicts and settlements totaling millions of dollars for clients. The selected matters below reflect experience across mold and habitability claims, disability-rights litigation, property damage, personal injury, trials and appeals. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case depends on its facts, evidence and applicable law.
$1.8 million judgment
Judgment obtained after a bench trial in a civil case involving domestic violence and child sexual abuse.
$859,478 water damage trial award
Trial award involving a tenant displaced during mold and asbestos remediation following water damage.
Published tenant appeal: Hersey v. Vopava
In Hersey v. Vopava (2019), Jonathan represented a tenant in a habitability dispute. The Court of Appeal reversed the amended judgment incorporating the costs order and remanded for recalculation.
The opinion addresses how pre-offer costs are considered when comparing a judgment with successive settlement offers under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. It did not reverse the underlying damages determination.
$500,000 client recovery
Recovery for a seriously injured client in litigation involving disability discrimination.
$450,000 mold-related result
Result in a case involving mold exposure and exacerbation of lung disease.
Two separate $500,000 mold-related recoveries
In two separate lawsuits involving two different tenants, Jonathan obtained a $500,000 recovery in each case. Both matters involved claimed asthma and mold exposure, and each had its own medical evidence, property history and disputed facts.
Approximately $325,000 mold-related recovery
Jonathan obtained an approximately $325,000 recovery for another tenant in a mold-related matter. The client and property are not identified.
Approximately $911,000 commercial-property settlement
Jonathan obtained an approximately $911,000 settlement for a commercial landlord in litigation against a city involving alleged waste and damage to the client’s land.
Disability-rights and public-transit litigation
Jonathan represented disabled bus riders in a class action and numerous related individual lawsuits involving alleged discriminatory treatment by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus operators. The individual matters addressed alleged pass-ups, derogatory treatment and failures to provide reasonable assistance with wheelchair securement. The individual cases produced recoveries totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Early 18-day jury trial victory
In his first jury trial after admission to the California Bar, Jonathan tried an 18-day civil case against experienced opposing counsel and obtained an approximately $220,000 jury verdict against a homeowners association. Related post-trial proceedings concluded with an approximately $275,000 resolution involving that defendant, and Jonathan also obtained an additional $50,000 recovery from a third-party contractor.
Lawsuit dismissed with no payment by the client
Jonathan recently obtained a voluntary dismissal of a civil action against a defense client, with the client paying the plaintiff nothing.
Current complex tenant litigation
Jonathan currently represents more than 20 individual residential tenants and plaintiffs in two related class-action matters involving allegations of asbestos exposure, construction nuisance, mold, unsafe housing conditions, retaliation and property-management conduct. These are pending matters, and no outcome is implied. Client names, property addresses, defendants and case-identifying details are not disclosed.
Trial training and broader courtroom experience
Jonathan earned a certificate after completing a trial-advocacy program through Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College. He is a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) and has experience litigating in California state and federal courts. His work also includes automobile-collision and premises-liability matters, unlawful-detainer trials and other efforts to stop tenant evictions, selected employment and business disputes, and both plaintiff and defense representation in civil cases.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its facts, evidence, insurance or collectability issues, applicable law and other circumstances. Amounts stated are gross results before fees, costs, liens or allocation among parties unless otherwise indicated.
Talk about your own circumstances
These outcomes do not establish the value of another case. Contact the office for an individual discussion of your situation.
Birman v. Queen Surf Owners Association Inc.
The June 2008 California Bar Journal reports a $859,478 award for a tenant displaced following water damage during mold and asbestos remediation, identifying Jonathan D. Winters as plaintiff counsel. Read the published trial report.
Alternative writ in tenant litigation
On August 14, 2025, the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ in case B347488 requiring the trial court either to vacate and reconsider its discovery-referee appointment under statutory criteria, including each party’s ability to pay, or to show cause. This was procedural relief, not a damages award or final resolution of the underlying claims. Learn about this appellate work.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Awards and judgments do not necessarily represent amounts collected or a client’s net recovery.
Appellate notice of intent to grant tenant writ relief
In a tenant matter, an appellate court issued a notice stating its intent to grant Jonathan’s clients a peremptory writ in the first instance. The court concluded that the landlord’s notice to cure or quit was defective because it did not comply with the Los Angeles County COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution’s 30-day notice requirement. The matter later resolved confidentially. Client names, the opposing party, the case number and settlement terms are not disclosed.
Writ of mandate obtained in banking matter
In an earlier banking matter, Jonathan obtained a writ of mandate after a guardian was ordered against his client without first affording the client a court hearing. Client and case-identifying details are not disclosed.