Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP is proud to announce that the $46.475 million jury verdict in Jack Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc., et al. is now final. After the California First District Court of Appeal affirmed the jury’s verdict in full on December 31, 2024, Defendants sought review from the California Supreme Court and requested that the appellate opinion be depublished.
Both of those requests were denied.
“While the efforts by the insurance company to appeal delayed justice for Jack, it was not and could not be denied,” said Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP partner, Rahul Ravipudi. “The published appellate opinion cements a critical legal victory not only for our client, but also for injured athletes across California by reaffirming that sports instructors and facilities may be held accountable when they unreasonably increase risks beyond those inherent in the sport.”
Since obtaining the verdict in March of 2022, the sport of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu has skyrocketed in popularity while at the same time its safety standards have improved dramatically, which is yet another data point that accountability through the civil justice system fosters a safer and better society.
With nearly $10 million in post-judgment interest accrued, the total judgment now exceeds $56 million—more than 56 times the insurance policy limits[1]. The defendants’ insurer posted an over $70 million bond to pursue the appeal and, therefore, the judgment will be paid in full.
This result is a testament to the outstanding advocacy of Mr. Greener’s trial team, led by PSR attorneys Rahul Ravipudi, Paul Traina, and John Shaller, in collaboration with co-counsel from Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul, LLP: Shawn D. Morris, Michael Malady, and Christian Barton. Special recognition also goes to appellate counsel Rupa G. Singh and Victoria E. Fuller from Niddrie | Addams | Fuller | Singh for their exceptional work on the appeal in this case.
“My life was forever changed by my black belt Jiu-Jitsu instructor, Francisco Iturralde, and his reckless actions which left me paralyzed from the neck down and a multi-stroke survivor,” said Jack Greener. “I am incredibly grateful to both teams at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP and Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul, LLP and the subsequent victory earned through immense passion and hard work. Their longstanding dedication to the case, positivity in the face of numerous litigation obstacles, and deep kindness to not only myself as a client but also to my entire family through the process will never be forgotten.”
Case Background
Plaintiff Jack Greener, a white belt Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) student, suffered catastrophic injuries during a class at Del Mar Jiu Jitsu Club, a dojo owned and operated by M. Phelps, Inc. The injuries occurred at the end of class when his instructor, Francisco Iturralde, decided to spar with Jack where he knowingly and incorrectly performed a dangerous technique rendering Jack an incomplete quadriplegic.
Greener filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by instructor Iturralde and seeking to hold M. Phelps, Inc. vicariously liable as his employer. The defense invoked the primary assumption of risk doctrine, asserting that Greener’s injuries were inherent to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. They also sought to introduce evidence of Greener’s prior wrestling and BJJ competition experience, as well as information regarding Iturralde’s teaching methods.
At trial, the court instructed the jury using the increased risk standard (CACI No. 471, Option 2), finding that defendants could be held liable for unreasonably increasing the risks beyond those inherent in BJJ sparring. The jury ultimately awarded $46.475 million in damages.
Arguments on Appeal
On appeal, defendants raised two central issues:
- Jury Instructions
They argued that the trial court erred by selecting the increased risk standard (Option 2) instead of the more limited reckless or intentional conduct standard (Option 1).
- Evidentiary Exclusions
They claimed the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Greener’s prior wrestling background, his participation in BJJ competitions, and further testimony regarding Iturralde’s teaching practices.
Court of Appeal’s Ruling
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict in full:
- Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the existence and scope of a duty of care is a legal question for the court, not the jury. It held that sports instructors owe a duty not to unreasonably increase the risks inherent in the activity. The court found the increased risk instruction proper in this case because Iturralde’s conduct went beyond the inherent risks of BJJ sparring. Iturralde recognized that he had created a situation involving a heightened risk to Greener’s safety. He had immobilized Greener and was preparing to perform a dangerous maneuver. Despite having both the time and the skill to avoid causing harm, he consciously chose to proceed. The court emphasized that the risk of an instructor deliberately executing a maneuver on a restrained student, knowing it is likely to cause injury, is not among the inherent risks assumed in BJJ sparring.
- Exclusion of Evidence
The Court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of evidence as irrelevant and cumulative. Greener’s past wrestling experience and unrelated BJJ competition footage were not probative of the specific negligent acts at issue. Similarly, Iturralde’s own testimony about his teaching and his approach to training Greener rendered additional evidence on the same points duplicative. Additionally, testimony from other BJJ students regarding the incident or their experiences with Iturralde as an instructor was properly excluded, as it would have merely reiterated information already presented to the jury.
With the appellate opinion now officially published and final, this case stands as a landmark decision on duty and liability in sports instruction and underscores Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP’s commitment to securing justice for those who suffer life-altering injuries due to others’ misconduct.
[1] [Prior to filing suit, Plaintiff made a clear and timely demand to resolve the matter within the $1 million policy limits issued to Defendants by United States Fire Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Crum & Forster. Despite the opportunity to protect its insured, U.S. Fire failed to accept the demand or engage in meaningful settlement negotiations. As a result, the policy was opened, and U.S. Fire is now liable for the full amount of the excess judgment.]