By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Burned because of someone else?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
Below is a dated timeline built from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s own case summary, the free court documents we found, and news coverage of the trial and the post-trial hearing. After that comes the story of the case itself and a comparison with the McDonald’s hot coffee case.
Beverly Law is not affiliated with Starbucks. Beverly Law did not represent any party in this case.
The case at a glance
| Item | Detail | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Case | Michael Garcia v. Starbucks Corporation, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 20STCV10214, Spring Street Courthouse | LASC case summary |
| Claims | General negligence and premises liability | LASC tentative ruling, April 10, 2024 |
| Incident | February 8, 2020, Starbucks drive-thru at 1789 West Jefferson Boulevard, Exposition Park area of Los Angeles | CBS Los Angeles |
| Trial judge | Frederick Shaller, Department 5 | LASC case summary |
| Verdict | $50 million; Starbucks 100 percent at fault; punitive damages not sought | Courthouse News, June 4, 2025 |
| Post-trial | New trial and JNOV motions denied June 4, 2025 | LASC case summary |
| Outcome | Settled (notice filed June 20, 2025); Request for Dismissal July 14, 2025; terms not public | LASC case summary |
| Status as of Nov. 5, 2026 | Disposed; no notice of appeal among the documents the court lists | LASC case summary |
Case timeline
Dates for filings and hearings come from the court’s case summary unless another source is linked. “LASC” below is that summary.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 8, 2020 | A venti tea falls from a drive-thru carrier into Garcia’s lap at the West Jefferson Boulevard store | CBS Los Angeles |
| March 13, 2020 | Garcia files suit against Starbucks Corporation for general negligence and premises liability | Tentative ruling, April 10, 2024; LASC |
| April 23, 2020 | Starbucks files its answer | Tentative ruling, April 10, 2024 |
| April 10, 2024 | Judge Lisa R. Jaskol grants Garcia’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint | Tentative ruling; LASC |
| Sept. 30, 2024 | Starbucks’ motion for summary judgment denied | LASC |
| Dec. 30, 2024 | Garcia’s motion to try liability and damages separately is continued to the trial date for the trial judge to decide | Tentative ruling |
| Jan. 8, 2025 | Starbucks’ motion to continue trial denied; the January and early February trial dates are later moved by stipulation | LASC |
| Feb. 20, 2025 | Trial Transfer Order sends the case to Judge Frederick Shaller, Department 5 | LASC |
| Feb. 27, 2025 | Jury trial opens in Department 5 | LASC |
| March 5, 2025 | First day of CVN’s recorded trial video, which runs through March 14 | CVN |
| March 6, 2025 | Special Verdict (Phase 1) filed: the jury finds Starbucks responsible and assigns Garcia no fault after 40 minutes of deliberation | LASC; CVN blog |
| March 11, 2025 | After the liability finding, Starbucks raises its settlement offer to $30 million; Garcia declines (reported as “Tuesday” in the March 14 article) | Courthouse News, March 14, 2025 |
| March 14, 2025 | Special Verdict Phase II filed: $50 million. Starbucks says, “We plan to appeal.” | LASC; Courthouse News, March 14, 2025 |
| April 3, 2025 | Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment filed | LASC |
| April 18, 2025 | Starbucks files notices of intent to move for a new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Garcia files a memorandum of costs, a motion for prejudgment interest and a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs of $1,558,325 | LASC |
| May 15 and 21, 2025 | Court admits Lisa Blatt and Richmond Moore to appear from out of state, on applications Starbucks filed April 3 | LASC |
| June 4, 2025 | Hearing on the new trial and JNOV motions: “Held – Motion Denied.” Fees and prejudgment costs motions taken under submission. Starbucks says it is “considering our next steps in the legal process.” | LASC; Courthouse News, June 4, 2025 |
| June 5, 11 and 17, 2025 | Court rules on Garcia’s cost-of-proof motion (June 5), hears Starbucks’ motion to tax costs (June 11) and rules on prejudgment interest (June 17); the free summary does not show the outcomes | LASC |
| June 20, 2025 | Garcia files a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case | LASC |
| June 25, 2025 | Order re Cost of Proof and Order re Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest filed; court sets an Aug. 15 hearing on an order to show cause re dismissal (settlement) | LASC |
| July 14, 2025 | Garcia files a Request for Dismissal | LASC |
| July 15, 2025 | Court vacates the Aug. 15 dismissal hearing | LASC |
| Nov. 5, 2026 | Court lists the case as “Disposed”; none of the 217 documents it lists is a notice of appeal | LASC |
Free burn injury case review
Tell us what happened. We will tell you plainly whether there is a case and what to do next. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Court documents
We posted copies of the main filings from the Los Angeles Superior Court file, case no. 20STCV10214, so you can read them yourself. Each is a PDF. On the Phase 1 verdict form and in the judgment, we blacked out the presiding juror’s name and signature. In the June 4, 2025 order, we blacked out one phone number the court quoted. Nothing else was changed.
| Date filed | Document | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| March 13, 2020 | Complaint (PDF, 4 pages) | Garcia sues Starbucks Corporation and Does 1 to 50 for general negligence and premises liability. It places the incident on Feb. 8, 2020 at 1789 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, and alleges the drinks were served too hot, the lids were not secured, the container was not sound, and the drinks were handed over before he had a secure grip. |
| April 11, 2024 | First Amended Complaint (PDF, 6 pages) | Filed by Trial Lawyers for Justice. The claim narrows to one point: Starbucks failed to properly “seat” or secure the hot drinks in the drink carrier before handing it out, and an unsecured cup spilled into his lap, causing burns, disfigurement and nerve damage. One cause of action, negligence. |
| March 6, 2025 | Special Verdict, Phase 1 (PDF, 2 pages) | The jury’s liability answers: Starbucks was negligent (yes), its negligence was a substantial factor in harming Garcia (yes), Garcia was negligent (no). Because the answer to the third question was no, the jury never reached the fault-percentage question. |
| April 3, 2025 | Judgment on Special Verdict (PDF, 5 pages) | Signed by Judge Frederick C. Shaller. It recites both phases of the verdict and orders that Garcia recover $50,000,000 from Starbucks, with interest at 10 percent a year from entry of judgment, plus costs to be set later. |
| June 4, 2025 | Minute order and final rulings on the new trial and JNOV motions (PDF, 14 pages) | The court denied Starbucks’ motion for a new trial “in full” on all five grounds it raised, including the zero-fault finding, the exclusion of an incident report and medical bills, and the claim that $50 million was excessive. It also denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding no credible evidence that Garcia was at fault to any degree and noting that the video of the incident negated Starbucks’ core arguments. The fee and prejudgment cost motions were taken under submission. |
| June 20, 2025 | Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (PDF, 4 pages) | Garcia’s lawyer tells the court the entire case has settled and the settlement is unconditional, with a settlement date of June 20, 2025. No amount is stated. |
| July 14, 2025 | Request for Dismissal (PDF, 4 pages) | Dismissal of the entire action with prejudice. The clerk entered it on July 15, 2025. |
The Special Verdict for Phase II (the $50 million damages form, March 14, 2025) will be added here when we post it. The court’s case summary lists every filing and hearing and is free to search on the Court Access Portal at lacourt.ca.gov. Two earlier tentative rulings by Judge Lisa R. Jaskol are reproduced on rulings.law, a third-party site: April 10, 2024, granting leave to amend (the page is labeled 2023-09-15), and Dec. 30, 2024, sending the bifurcation motion to the trial judge.
What happened at the drive-thru
Garcia, then 25, was working as a delivery driver and picking up three venti “medicine ball” teas (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025). A barista handed him a carrier, and at least one drink overturned. His lawsuit alleged the barista failed to secure one of the cups in the to-go carrier, and that the cup fell into his lap within 1.4 seconds of his taking the tray, with the lid popping off (CBS Los Angeles). His lawyers said video from inside the store showed one drink pushed only partway into the carrier, and that the loose drink spilled seconds after he took the tray (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025).
His injuries and treatment
Garcia suffered third-degree burns, nerve damage and permanent injury to his genitals, according to CBS Los Angeles. He began treatment at the Grossman Burn Center six days after the spill, on Valentine’s Day, and had skin grafts that, according to his lawyers, left him with some permanent loss of feeling. His lawyers also said he has had multiple surgeries, still has daily pain and has severe post-traumatic stress disorder (CBS Los Angeles). The Grossman Burn Center in West Hills became the UCLA Health Regional Burn Center after UCLA Health acquired it in 2024 (UCLA Health).
Before trial
Garcia filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 13, 2020. Four years later, citing a store video received in discovery, he was allowed to amend his complaint (tentative ruling, April 10, 2024), and in September 2024 the court denied Starbucks’ motion for summary judgment (LASC case summary). In late 2024 his lawyers moved to try liability and damages separately. Judge Jaskol continued that motion to the trial date so the trial judge could decide it (tentative ruling, Dec. 30, 2024). The trial did proceed in two phases, first liability and then damages (CVN).
Starbucks offered $3 million before trial and later $30 million (CBS Los Angeles). Courthouse News reported the $30 million offer came after the jury found liability and before it set damages, and that Starbucks wanted the amount kept confidential. According to CBS, Garcia was willing to accept $30 million only if Starbucks apologized, changed its policies and sent stores a memo telling employees to double-check hot drinks before handing them over; Starbucks declined those terms.
The trial
Garcia was represented by Nicholas Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice and Daniel Bidegaray of Bidegaray Law Firm. Starbucks was represented by Stephen Pelletier of Price Pelletier (CVN).
Garcia’s position. The barista did not properly secure one of the drinks before handing the carrier through the window (CVN). Rowley described Starbucks’ position this way, as quoted by CBS Los Angeles: “Starbucks says if our hands are off the drink, then no matter what happens, we’re not responsible” (CBS Los Angeles).
Starbucks’ position. Pelletier told jurors that an accident reconstruction expert had concluded Garcia was in full control of the drinks when they spilled, and that the employees’ actions that day complied with Starbucks’ training standards (CVN blog). After trial, Starbucks also argued Garcia should have been found at least partly at fault and objected that a report saying he was tending to his dog had been excluded (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025).
The verdict
The jury decided liability first. On March 6, 2025, after 40 minutes of deliberation, it found Starbucks entirely responsible and assigned Garcia no fault (CVN blog). On Friday, March 14, 2025, after a week on damages, the jury awarded $50 million; Courthouse News reported that the damages deliberation took a little over two hours and that Rowley had asked for $120 million (Courthouse News, March 14, 2025; AP via Claims Journal). Garcia’s lawyers did not seek punitive damages (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025). According to ABC7, citing the verdict recording, Garcia’s damages included physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, inconvenience, grief, disfigurement, physical impairment, anxiety and emotional distress (ABC7).
Starbucks responded: “We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive. We plan to appeal.” (CBS Los Angeles). The court entered judgment on April 3, 2025 (LASC case summary).
The post-trial ruling of June 4, 2025
Starbucks moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Its lawyer, Rich Moore, a Williams & Connolly partner, called the verdict “grossly excessive” and argued the jury had arrived at $50 million by awarding $1 million a year for 50 years, that medical bills had been wrongly kept out of the damages phase, and that Rowley’s closing argument appealed to passion and prejudice (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025).
Judge Shaller denied the motions at the June 4, 2025 hearing (LASC case summary). “I don’t think it was unreasonable. Maybe the Court of Appeals will see it differently,” he said. On the $1 million-a-year theory he said, “There’s no evidence of that.” Rowley put the total with interest and fees at around $61.7 million. A Starbucks spokesperson said in an email: “We respectfully disagree with this ruling and believe the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the law,” adding that the company was “considering our next steps in the legal process” (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025).
Settlement and dismissal
No notice of appeal appears in the trial court’s file. Sixteen days after the hearing, on June 20, 2025, Garcia filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case reporting an unconditional settlement, and on July 14, 2025 he filed a Request for Dismissal of the entire action with prejudice, entered by the clerk on July 15. The court then took the follow-up dismissal hearing off calendar and lists the case as “Disposed” (LASC case summary). The amount and terms of the settlement have not been made public in any court record or news report we reviewed, so the final figure Starbucks paid is unknown. The $50 million verdict, the judgment and the June 2025 denial of a new trial remain the public record of how the case was decided.
Garcia and the McDonald’s case compared
| Liebeck v. McDonald’s (New Mexico, 1994) | Garcia v. Starbucks (Los Angeles, 2025) | |
|---|---|---|
| Drink | Coffee bought at a drive-thru | Three venti teas picked up at a drive-thru |
| Main theory | The coffee was served too hot, with no adequate warning | A cup was not secured in the carrier at the handoff |
| Temperature evidence | McDonald’s manual: held at 180 to 190°F | No measured serving temperature reported; Rowley, speaking to CBS, described “a scalding hot, 180-degree drink” |
| Customer’s share of fault | 20 percent | None; Starbucks found 100 percent liable |
| Punitive damages | $2.7 million, reduced by the judge to $480,000 | Not sought |
| Result | Settled before appeal, reported under $500,000 | $50 million verdict; new trial and JNOV denied; settled in June 2025 on terms not made public and dismissed |
Sources: American Museum of Tort Law; Wall Street Journal via Tampa Bay Times; Courthouse News, June 4, 2025; LASC case summary. The full Liebeck story is on our McDonald’s hot coffee case page.
What the case shows about drive-thru burn claims in California
A single verdict does not set the value of another case, and Garcia’s award reflected genital burns, grafts and permanent nerve injury. The case does show how California law treats a handoff spill.
- Duty of ordinary care. California makes everyone responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care (Civ. Code § 1714). Garcia’s case focused on how the drink was prepared and passed through the window.
- Shared fault. California reduces damages by the injured person’s share of fault without barring recovery (Li v. Yellow Cab). The jury here assigned Garcia none.
- Punitive damages are separate. They require clear and convincing proof of malice, oppression or fraud, and against a corporation the conduct must trace to an officer, director or managing agent (Civ. Code § 3294). Garcia’s $50 million was entirely compensatory.
- Video matters. Garcia’s lawyers relied on the store’s own camera footage of the handoff (Courthouse News, June 4, 2025). If you are burned at a drive-thru, ask the business in writing right away to keep its video.
- Deadline. A California injury suit generally must be filed within two years (CCP § 335.1). Texas and Washington rules are on our burn law by state page.
- Cases take time. Garcia filed in March 2020 and the case was dismissed after settlement in July 2025, more than five years later (LASC case summary).
Hot tea and coffee can cause deep burns very fast: the American Burn Association’s table shows a third-degree burn in adult skin in about one second at 155°F (ABA scald guide). See our hot beverage temperature page for the full tables, our Starbucks burn page for other reported Starbucks cases, and scald burns for other hot-liquid injuries.
Talk to a burn injury lawyer
If a cup slipped out of a carrier or a lid popped off at a drive-thru window and burned you, write down the store address, date and time, and ask the store in writing to keep its video. Then call Beverly Law at (310) 552-6959 for a free consultation in English or Spanish about a claim in California, Texas or Washington. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. You owe no fees or costs unless we win. Learn more on our burn injury lawyer page or our Los Angeles injury page.
Common questions
How much did the jury award in Garcia v. Starbucks?
$50 million, on March 14, 2025, in Los Angeles Superior Court. The award was compensatory; Garcia’s lawyers did not seek punitive damages.
Did Starbucks appeal the $50 million verdict?
No appeal appears in the court file. Starbucks said in March 2025 that it planned to appeal, but the case settled in June 2025 and Garcia filed a Request for Dismissal on July 14, 2025.
How much did Starbucks pay Michael Garcia?
That is not public. The Notice of Settlement filed June 20, 2025 is listed in the court file, but no court record or news report we reviewed gives the settlement amount.
Did the judge reduce the verdict?
No. On June 4, 2025, Judge Frederick Shaller denied Starbucks’ motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
What happened to Michael Garcia?
A venti tea fell from a drive-thru carrier into his lap on February 8, 2020. He suffered third-degree burns and nerve damage to his genitals and had skin grafts.
Was the tea too hot?
The case was tried on how the cup was secured in the carrier. The coverage we reviewed did not report a measured serving temperature, though Garcia’s lawyer Nicholas Rowley described “a scalding hot, 180-degree drink” when speaking to CBS Los Angeles after the verdict.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
Burn injury lawyer — Beverly Law
If you or your child was burned because of someone else in California, Texas and Washington, talk to a burn injury attorney. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Related pages
Sources
- Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court Access Portal, case summary for No. 20STCV10214 (parties, pro (cap.lacourt.ca.gov)
- LASC tentative ruling, Judge Lisa R. Jaskol, Dept. 28, hearing date April 10, 2024 (motion for leave to file a first ame
- LASC tentative ruling, Judge Lisa R. Jaskol, Dept. 28, Dec. 30, 2024 (motion to bifurcate), reproduced at rulings.law
- Courtroom View Network, Michael Garcia v. Starbucks Corp., No. 20STCV10214 (trial page) (cvn.com)
- CVN blog, "Starbucks Found Liable for Customer's Burns From Beverage Spill," March 2025 (blog.cvn.com)
- Courthouse News Service, "Starbucks hit with $50 million jury verdict for hot tea that scalded and disfigured Postmates (courthousenews.com)
- Courthouse News Service, "Starbucks can't dodge $50M verdict for spilled tea that burned Postmates driver's penis," June (courthousenews.com)
- CBS Los Angeles, "Los Angeles man awarded $50 million in case against Starbucks after suffering permanent injury from sp (cbsnews.com)
- ABC7 Los Angeles, March 15, 2025 (abc7.com)
- AP via Claims Journal, March 17, 2025 (amp.claimsjournal.com)
- UCLA Health news, April 3, 2025 (Grossman Burn Center now UCLA Health Regional Burn Center) (uclahealth.org)
- American Museum of Tort Law, Liebeck v. McDonald's (tortmuseum.org)
- Wall Street Journal (republished by Tampa Bay Times), Sept. 2, 1994 (tampabay.com)
- Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 (scocal.stanford.edu)
- American Burn Association, Scald Injury Prevention Educator's Guide (childburn.org)
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 6, 2026.