Our attorneys have extensive experience handling some of the most complex, novel, and important appeals for our clients in state and federal courts throughout the country. Our appellate experience and victories have covered a wide range of areas, including fraud, consumer protection, class action, land use, white collar, false claims act, constitutional law, contract, antitrust, and unfair competition. Many of our victories have come in cases of first impression, where the odds were stacked against our client and others had predicted our client would lose.
To each appeal, we bring the same strategic thinking, vigor, and incisive writing that makes us successful at the trial court level. Most of our attorneys have clerked on federal courts. This experience means we are able to craft briefs that zero in on the strongest legal and factual arguments, as well as the policy considerations, we know will be most persuasive.
We frequently represent clients through trial and appeal. At the trial court level, we rely on our appellate experience to ensure we are properly preserving and persuasively presenting legal issues for appeal. We have also been retained to replace trial counsel for important or difficult appeals. In these engagements, we closely study the record and construct an appellate strategy that integrates a trial lawyer’s focus on a compelling factual narrative with an appellate lawyer’s focus on legal standards and arguments that resonate with appellate courts.
- Park at Cross Creek, et al. v. City of Malibu. Obtained precedent-setting victory in a challenge to the constitutionality of a Malibu land use ordinance described by the New York Times as “one of the most stringent anti-development measures ever attempted in the country.” The victory, which included a unanimous decision by the California Court of Appeal and denial of review by the California Supreme Court, was hailed by the Los Angeles Daily Journal as “a major appellate win in a high-profile legal and political battle…”
- GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories. Obtained groundbreaking victory on behalf of client GlaxoSmithKline at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arising out of GSK’s antitrust and unfair competition claims against Abbott. Agreeing with our arguments, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion holding for the first time that discriminating against a juror on the basis of sexual orientation violated the United States Constitution.
- In re Advance Health Care Directive of Sumner M. Redstone. Prevailed in the California Court of Appeal on behalf of our client, Sumner Redstone, in a matter of first impression, arising under a statute no Court of Appeal had previously addressed, putting an end to a two-year long dispute over Redstone’s right to choose his health care agent.
- Koch v. Greenberg. Prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion defining the standards for fraud and New York consumer protection law claims, and affirming a trial award of liability and punitive damages for our client.
- People of the State of Illinois vs. Former FBI Agent. Our attorneys played a key role in crafting the appellate briefs that led the Illinois Supreme Court to strike down its Eavesdropping Act for violating both the United States and Illinois Constitutions. This victory led to the full dismissal of a felony prosecution that had been pending against our client.
- Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co. Obtained unanimous victory in New York’s highest appellate court on the definition and scope of New York’s consumer protection and false advertising laws (GBL 349 and 350). The win was described by the New York Law Journal as a “game changer.”
- In re John Kapon et al. Prevailed before the New York Court of Appeals in an action concerning an evidentiary and civil procedure issue of first impression. After our victory, our client obtained a very favorable settlement.
- Brown v. Holder. Established new law in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit concerning the due process rights of immigrants. Adopting our arguments, the Ninth Circuit held, for the first time, that a constitutional right exists to apply for U.S. citizenship.
- Hollingsworth v. Perry. Represented Equality California before the United States Supreme Court in arguing that those who opposed same-sex marriage did not have standing to challenge the trial court’s decision that found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court agreed in an opinion that explicated the rules of standing and effectively established the freedom to marry in California.