Representative Briefs
In appellate practice, cases are decided primarily based on written briefs. With over thirty lawyers focusing exclusively on appeals, Horvitz & Levy LLP writes hundreds of briefs every year. Below are just a few examples of briefs we have filed on behalf of our clients in each of our major practice areas.
-
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Company (2016)
Amicus curiae brief on behalf of insurance trade associations addressing whether an insurer can be held liable for bad faith under a “duty to settle” theory when the insurer offers policy limits within a reasonable period of time, even if shortly after an artificial deadline imposed by a third-party claimant.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire (2016)
United States Supreme Court brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula in state court representative actions.
Read More...
-
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Company (2016)
Amicus curiae brief on behalf of insurance trade associations addressing whether an insurer can be held liable for bad faith under a “duty to settle” theory when the insurer offers policy limits within a reasonable period of time, even if shortly after an artificial deadline imposed by a third-party claimant.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire (2016)
United States Supreme Court brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula in state court representative actions.
-
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that if the Industrial Welfare Commission wage order definitions of “employer” govern whether workers are employees rather than independent contractors, those definitions are not meaningfully different from the common law test for making that determination.
-
MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski (2015)
United States Supreme Court brief tracing the history of California courts’ application of unconscionability rules to avoid enforcing arbitration agreements, and arguing that California’s unconscionability standards are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
-
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2014)
U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that Federal Arbitration Act prohibits courts from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements based on a concern for the vindication of state statutory rights.
-
Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp. (2014)
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula on either liability or damages issues in state court class actions.
-
Maddox v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. et al. (2014)
Kentucky Supreme Court brief arguing that punitive damages should not be permitted, as a general rule, against product manufacturers who comply with all applicable government safety requirements.
-
Bixby v. KBR, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing that punitive damages cannot be imposed under state law to regulate conduct in a foreign nation.
-
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2013)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the following rule of California law: that arbitration procedures are invalid to the extent they fail to vindicate California statutory rights.
-
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2012)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California public policy and unconscionability standards that invalidate arbitration agreements where the arbitration procedures fail to satisfy certain minimal procedural requirements or unduly favor one party over the other.
-
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2012)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California unconscionability standard that invalidates arbitration procedures to the extent they unduly favor one party over the other, and that in any event such arbitration procedures are not unconscionable under state law because they do not shock the conscience.
-
Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012)
California Court of Appeal amicus brief supporting settlement agreement that halted seniority-based layoffs in low performing schools.
-
Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington v. Moratti (2012)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “covenant judgments” between insurance policyholders and third-party tort claimants are inherently collusive, and that Washington courts violate due process by conclusively presuming that the amounts of such judgments are the measure of damages in subsequent bad faith actions against insurers.
-
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2010)
California Supreme Court amici curiae brief arguing that the common-law collateral source rule does not allow a plaintiff to recover as medical expense damages the “usual and customary” charges billed by the plaintiff’s healthcare providers when the providers agreed to accept as full payment for their services lesser amounts from the plaintiff’s health insurance carrier.
-
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2009)
California Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of public interest organizations in dispute over availability of attorney fees in low-damage discrimination cases.
-
Caso Campo Algodonero (2009)
Amici curiae brief in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on behalf of various women’s and human rights organizations, supporting claims against Mexico under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women.
-
Johnson v. American Standard (2008)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing for adoption of the sophisticated user defense in California.
-
Shell Oil Co. v. United States (2008)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “arranger” liability under CERCLA is limited by the statute’s plain language and legislative history to those who arrange for the disposal or treatment of “waste.”
-
Van Buren v. Evans (2008)
Amicus brief in the California Court of Appeal, defending the $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) against new constitutional attacks.
-
Malin v. Singer (2012)
Appellants’ opening brief arguing that a pre-lawsuit demand letter on behalf of a client is protected by the First Amendment and the litigation privilege.
-
Henriks v. State Farm (2009)
Respondent’s brief seeking affirmance of order granting anti-SLAPP motion in a lawsuit where plaintiff sought to hold insurer vicariously liable for allegedly improper actions taken by a private investigator hired by insurance defense counsel.
Read More...
-
Malin v. Singer (2012)
Appellants’ opening brief arguing that a pre-lawsuit demand letter on behalf of a client is protected by the First Amendment and the litigation privilege.
-
Henriks v. State Farm (2009)
Respondent’s brief seeking affirmance of order granting anti-SLAPP motion in a lawsuit where plaintiff sought to hold insurer vicariously liable for allegedly improper actions taken by a private investigator hired by insurance defense counsel.
-
Lee v. Elghanayan (2008)
Respondent’s brief seeking affirmance of our client’s successful anti-SLAPP motion in a lawsuit challenging the cancellation of a sub-lease resulting from an out-of-state arbitration award.
-
Laiwala v. Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. (2008)
Respondent’s brief seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal from a demurrer and anti-SLAPP ruling as untimely because plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal within 60 days of the judgment, but more than 60 days after the grant of anti-SLAPP motion.
Read More...
-
Kanno v. Marwit Capital (2015)
California Court of Appeal opening brief arguing for enforcement of parol evidence rule under California and Delaware law in business dispute involving alleged oral agreement.
-
Southern Track and Pump, Inc. v. Terex Corp., et al. (2014)
Third Circuit amicus brief arguing that state statute unconstitutionally took business's private property without due process of law or just compensation.
-
Transbay Auto Service, Inc. v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit opening brief arguing that trial court committed evidentiary error in case arising under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act.
-
Shell Oil Co. v. United States (2008)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “arranger” liability under CERCLA is limited by the statute’s plain language and legislative history to those who arrange for the disposal or treatment of “waste.”
-
Boeken v. Phillip Morris USA (2008)
California Supreme Court brief for Phillip Morris arguing that the doctrine of res judicata bars a plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action that she brought after the death of her husband, because she had dismissed with prejudice a claim for loss of consortium while he was alive.
-
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Company (2016)
Amicus curiae brief on behalf of insurance trade associations addressing whether an insurer can be held liable for bad faith under a “duty to settle” theory when the insurer offers policy limits within a reasonable period of time, even if shortly after an artificial deadline imposed by a third-party claimant.
-
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015)
Petition asking the California Supreme Court petition to grant review in Desperate Housewives employment dispute, to clarify the scope of the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.
Read More...
-
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Company (2016)
Amicus curiae brief on behalf of insurance trade associations addressing whether an insurer can be held liable for bad faith under a “duty to settle” theory when the insurer offers policy limits within a reasonable period of time, even if shortly after an artificial deadline imposed by a third-party claimant.
-
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015)
Petition asking the California Supreme Court petition to grant review in Desperate Housewives employment dispute, to clarify the scope of the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.
-
Burlage v. Superior Court (2009)
Answer to petition for review in the California Supreme Court, arguing against review of a published Court of Appeal decision that affirmed an order vacating an arbitration award.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire (2016)
United States Supreme Court brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula in state court representative actions.
-
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2015)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that on-call rest breaks comply with California law, as confirmed by the administrative and legislative history of Wage Orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission and relevant Labor Code provisions.
Read More...
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire (2016)
United States Supreme Court brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula in state court representative actions.
-
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2015)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that on-call rest breaks comply with California law, as confirmed by the administrative and legislative history of Wage Orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission and relevant Labor Code provisions.
-
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2014)
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula on either liability or damages issues in state court class actions.
-
Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp. (2014)
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula on either liability or damages issues in state court class actions.
-
Chapala/All American Insurance Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (2013)
Petition for writ of mandate arguing that the trial court erred in certifying classes by applying an incorrect legal standard in determining whether the classes were ascertainable.
-
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association (2013)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the use of statistical sampling to establish liability in a class action violates the defendant’s fundamental due process right to present defenses to liability.
-
Weinstat v. Dentsply (2010)
Petition for review from appellate decision reversing decertification of class of dentists who purchased ultrasonic scaling devices, and rejecting trial court’s determination that “commonality” requirement was not met due to individualized questions of causation of injury.
-
Nelson v. Pearson Ford (2010)
California appellate brief explaining construction of the Auto Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law; challenging a judgment in favor of class action plaintiffs who claimed that aspects of an auto dealer’s purchase contracts constituted statutory violations that allowed buyers to both keep possession of their cars and obtain a windfall refund of the purchase payments for the cars.
-
Soualian v. Int'l Coffee and Tea, LLC (2008)
Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing a district court properly denied class certification in an action under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) because certification would expose the defendant to staggering classwide statutory damages, even though putative class members suffered no actual harm.
-
Lewis v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2007)
Petition for review in the California Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of the “injury in fact” requirement for standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law in the context of a class action alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act, and also seeking review of whether individualized inquiries required by due process render claims for punitive damages inherently unsuitable for determination on a class-wide basis.
-
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2012)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California unconscionability standard that invalidates arbitration procedures to the extent they unduly favor one party over the other, and that in any event such arbitration procedures are not unconscionable under state law because they do not shock the conscience.
-
Nelson v. Pearson Ford (2010)
California appellate brief explaining construction of the Auto Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law; challenging a judgment in favor of class action plaintiffs who claimed that aspects of an auto dealer’s purchase contracts constituted statutory violations that allowed buyers to both keep possession of their cars and obtain a windfall refund of the purchase payments for the cars.
Read More...
-
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2012)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California unconscionability standard that invalidates arbitration procedures to the extent they unduly favor one party over the other, and that in any event such arbitration procedures are not unconscionable under state law because they do not shock the conscience.
-
Nelson v. Pearson Ford (2010)
California appellate brief explaining construction of the Auto Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law; challenging a judgment in favor of class action plaintiffs who claimed that aspects of an auto dealer’s purchase contracts constituted statutory violations that allowed buyers to both keep possession of their cars and obtain a windfall refund of the purchase payments for the cars.
-
Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers) (2008)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that insurers provide neither “goods” nor “services,” and thus are not subject to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
-
In re Tobacco II (Brown) (2007)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that, under the UCL standing requirements imposed after Proposition 64, a trial court properly denies class certification where standing cannot readily be ascertained by litigation of common questions of law and fact, and courts should not create presumptions of consumer reliance to satisfy the commonality requirement for class certification.
-
Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit appellant’s opening brief arguing that actress did not receive fair trial in suit against IMDb.com for breaching its privacy agreement by using the actress’s credit card information to research her age and publish it on the internet.
-
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the First Amendment limits liability for sexually explicit comments in the workplace.
Read More...
-
Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit appellant’s opening brief arguing that actress did not receive fair trial in suit against IMDb.com for breaching its privacy agreement by using the actress’s credit card information to research her age and publish it on the internet.
-
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the First Amendment limits liability for sexually explicit comments in the workplace.
-
Warner Bros. v. Golden (2005)
Ninth Circuit appellee’s brief arguing that Warner Bros. was entitled to terminate contract to provide programming to a cable network and recover unpaid fees.
-
Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. (2016)
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that manufacturer’s warnings about risk of fire on portable radiant space heater were adequate as a matter of law.
-
Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit appellant’s opening brief arguing that actress did not receive fair trial in suit against IMDb.com for breaching its privacy agreement by using the actress’s credit card information to research her age and publish it on the internet.
Read More...
-
Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. (2016)
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that manufacturer’s warnings about risk of fire on portable radiant space heater were adequate as a matter of law.
-
Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit appellant’s opening brief arguing that actress did not receive fair trial in suit against IMDb.com for breaching its privacy agreement by using the actress’s credit card information to research her age and publish it on the internet.
-
Transbay Auto Service, Inc. v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit opening brief arguing that trial court committed evidentiary error in case arising under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act.
-
Bixby v. KBR, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing that punitive damages cannot be imposed under state law to regulate conduct in a foreign nation.
-
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2012)
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that designer of luxury watches did not misuse its copyright in an artistic design by enforcing the exclusive rights conferred by that copyright to control the distribution of the copyrighted design as engraved on its watches.
-
Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington v. Moratti (2012)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “covenant judgments” between insurance policyholders and third-party tort claimants are inherently collusive, and that Washington courts violate due process by conclusively presuming that the amounts of such judgments are the measure of damages in subsequent bad faith actions against insurers.
-
Coleman v. Tri-City (2012)
Petition asking Ninth Circuit to hear interlocutory appeal of ruling on attorney-client privilege.
-
Pacific Operators v. Valladolid (2010)
Petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split on whether the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s extension of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to outer continental shelf workers applies to injuries on land. (Cert. granted 2/22/11.)
-
Shell Oil Co. v. United States (2008)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “arranger” liability under CERCLA is limited by the statute’s plain language and legislative history to those who arrange for the disposal or treatment of “waste.”
-
J.R. Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co. (2007)
Tenth Circuit brief arguing that, under the Seventh Amendment, Chevron was deprived of a jury trial when the district court fixed awards of attorney fees and costs as compensatory damages.
-
Hebrew Academy v. Goldman (2007)
California Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of numerous library, history and publishing organizations that resulted in an opinion holding that the single publication rule applies to written publications with “an extremely limited distribution” to bar a defamation claim on statute of limitations grounds.
-
Tory v. Cochran (2005)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that an injunctive remedy entered by the trial court after a defamation finding was overbroad and therefore unconstitutional.
-
El Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center (2012)
California Supreme Court brief successfully arguing that hospital’s governing board was permitted to initiate peer review proceedings regarding the competency of a physician to hold medical staff privileges, by selecting medical staff physician reviewers and a hearing officer after the medical staff itself declined to do so.
-
Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital Medical Center (2008)
California Supreme Court brief addressing whether terminating sanctions can properly be issued in medical staff peer review proceedings when physician violates hearing officer’s discovery orders.
Read More...
-
El Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center (2012)
California Supreme Court brief successfully arguing that hospital’s governing board was permitted to initiate peer review proceedings regarding the competency of a physician to hold medical staff privileges, by selecting medical staff physician reviewers and a hearing officer after the medical staff itself declined to do so.
-
Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital Medical Center (2008)
California Supreme Court brief addressing whether terminating sanctions can properly be issued in medical staff peer review proceedings when physician violates hearing officer’s discovery orders.
-
Van Buren v. Evans (2008)
Amicus brief in the California Court of Appeal, defending the $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) against new constitutional attacks.
-
Piedra v. Dugan (2004)
California Court of Appeal brief asking court to uphold a defense verdict in an action against a physician alleging lack of informed consent for treatment.
-
Lathrop v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group (2004)
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that MICRA’s limit on recovery of non-economic damages applies to a medical group’s liability.
-
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Company (2016)
Amicus curiae brief on behalf of insurance trade associations addressing whether an insurer can be held liable for bad faith under a “duty to settle” theory when the insurer offers policy limits within a reasonable period of time, even if shortly after an artificial deadline imposed by a third-party claimant.
-
Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington v. Moratti (2012)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “covenant judgments” between insurance policyholders and third-party tort claimants are inherently collusive, and that Washington courts violate due process by conclusively presuming that the amounts of such judgments are the measure of damages in subsequent bad faith actions against insurers.
Read More...
-
Madrigal v. Allstate Indemnity Company (2016)
Amicus curiae brief on behalf of insurance trade associations addressing whether an insurer can be held liable for bad faith under a “duty to settle” theory when the insurer offers policy limits within a reasonable period of time, even if shortly after an artificial deadline imposed by a third-party claimant.
-
Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington v. Moratti (2012)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that “covenant judgments” between insurance policyholders and third-party tort claimants are inherently collusive, and that Washington courts violate due process by conclusively presuming that the amounts of such judgments are the measure of damages in subsequent bad faith actions against insurers.
-
Ballester v. Superior Court (2011)
Petition for review asking the California Supreme Court to overrule Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 to the extent it permits discovery of private non-party information that is not directly relevant to pending litigation.
-
Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2004)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing against the proposition that tort remedies should be available when insurer has in bad faith retroactively billed an insured for an excessive premium.
-
Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford (2003)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that covered “advertising injury” under CGL policy required widespread promotion to the public; insurer had no duty to defend insured against competitor’s action alleging misappropriation of secret customer list and one-on-one solicitation of a few customers.
-
Hamilton v. Maryland Cas. Co. (2002)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that insurer that defends insured but refuses policy limits settlement offer is not bound by stipulated judgment entered pursuant to settlement agreement between insured and third party not approved by insurer, and insurer is not liable for breach of duty to settle based on stipulated judgment.
-
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2012)
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that designer of luxury watches did not misuse its copyright in an artistic design by enforcing the exclusive rights conferred by that copyright to control the distribution of the copyrighted design as engraved on its watches.
-
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that if the Industrial Welfare Commission wage order definitions of “employer” govern whether workers are employees rather than independent contractors, those definitions are not meaningfully different from the common law test for making that determination.
-
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2014)
U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that Federal Arbitration Act prohibits courts from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements based on a concern for the vindication of state statutory rights.
Read More...
-
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that if the Industrial Welfare Commission wage order definitions of “employer” govern whether workers are employees rather than independent contractors, those definitions are not meaningfully different from the common law test for making that determination.
-
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2014)
U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that Federal Arbitration Act prohibits courts from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements based on a concern for the vindication of state statutory rights.
-
Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp. (2014)
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula on either liability or damages issues in state court class actions.
-
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2013)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the following rule of California law: that arbitration procedures are invalid to the extent they fail to vindicate California statutory rights.
-
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2012)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California public policy and unconscionability standards that invalidate arbitration agreements where the arbitration procedures fail to satisfy certain minimal procedural requirements or unduly favor one party over the other.
-
Oldham v. Flynt (2008)
Appellant’s opening brief seeking reversal of trial court’s denial of employer’s motion to compel arbitration in an employment dispute.
-
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016)
Petition for writ of mandate successfully arguing that a fitness center’s liability release barred plaintiffs’ claim for ordinary negligence, and that the fitness center’s failure to dial 911 sooner did not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law.
-
Laico v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (2004)
Appellant’s opening brief arguing a property owner was not liable for injuries caused by chemicals on premises leased by plaintiff’s employer from landowner, where landowner had no knowledge of dangerous condition and exercised no control over leased premises.
Read More...
-
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016)
Petition for writ of mandate successfully arguing that a fitness center’s liability release barred plaintiffs’ claim for ordinary negligence, and that the fitness center’s failure to dial 911 sooner did not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law.
-
Laico v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (2004)
Appellant’s opening brief arguing a property owner was not liable for injuries caused by chemicals on premises leased by plaintiff’s employer from landowner, where landowner had no knowledge of dangerous condition and exercised no control over leased premises.
-
Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the plaintiff could not show that the failure to provide additional security guards was a substantial factor in causing her injuries; a speculative possibility that additional daytime security guards or functioning entrance gates might have prevented the assault on the plaintiff was insufficient to show causation.
Read More...
-
Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012)
California Court of Appeal amicus brief supporting settlement agreement that halted seniority-based layoffs in low performing schools.
-
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2009)
California Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of public interest organizations in dispute over availability of attorney fees in low-damage discrimination cases.
-
Caso Campo Algodonero (2009)
Amici curiae brief in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on behalf of various women’s and human rights organizations, supporting claims against Mexico under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women.
-
Chen v. Mukasey (2008)
Ninth Circuit brief for a man denied asylum and relief from religious persecution under the Convention Against Torture.
-
Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. (2016)
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that manufacturer’s warnings about risk of fire on portable radiant space heater were adequate as a matter of law.
-
O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2010)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that a defendant cannot be liable for injuries caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute.
Read More...
-
Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. (2016)
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that manufacturer’s warnings about risk of fire on portable radiant space heater were adequate as a matter of law.
-
O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2010)
California Supreme Court brief arguing that a defendant cannot be liable for injuries caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute.
-
Johnson v. American Standard (2008)
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing for adoption of the sophisticated user defense in California.
-
Norris v. Crane Co. (2008)
Petition for review to the California Supreme Court, asking the court to revisit the causation and liability standards for asbestos cases in which the plaintiff had minimal bystander exposure to the defendant’s product.
-
Lockheed Litigation Cases (2005)
California Supreme Court merits brief arguing that trial judges have authority under the California Evidence Code to exclude from the jury’s consideration expert testimony lacking in adequate foundation.
-
Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2013)
Appellant’s opening brief successfully arguing that opposing counsel should be disqualified for excessively reviewing privileged attorney-client communications and using them during discovery, in violation of the California Supreme Court decision in Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807.
-
Beal Bank v. Arter & Hadden (2007)
California Supreme Court brief arguing against tolling of statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claim.
Read More...
-
Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2013)
Appellant’s opening brief successfully arguing that opposing counsel should be disqualified for excessively reviewing privileged attorney-client communications and using them during discovery, in violation of the California Supreme Court decision in Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807.
-
Beal Bank v. Arter & Hadden (2007)
California Supreme Court brief arguing against tolling of statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claim.
-
Department of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems (1999)
California Supreme Court brief arguing for vicarious disqualification of law firm based on conflict of interest involving attorney who was “of counsel” to the firm.
-
Maddox v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. et al. (2014)
Kentucky Supreme Court brief arguing that punitive damages should not be permitted, as a general rule, against product manufacturers who comply with all applicable government safety requirements.
-
Bixby v. KBR, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing that punitive damages cannot be imposed under state law to regulate conduct in a foreign nation.
Read More...
-
Maddox v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. et al. (2014)
Kentucky Supreme Court brief arguing that punitive damages should not be permitted, as a general rule, against product manufacturers who comply with all applicable government safety requirements.
-
Bixby v. KBR, Inc. (2013)
Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing that punitive damages cannot be imposed under state law to regulate conduct in a foreign nation.
-
Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc. (2005)
California Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and others, arguing that an appellate court cannot affirm a punitive damages award based on an alleged “loss” that the Legislature has determined to be noncompensable.
-
Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2003)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of twenty leading manufacturers in support of a petition for certiorari, arguing that punitive damages should not be awarded against a manufacturer for conduct that complies with regulatory standards and industry custom.
-
State Farm v. Campbell Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003)
United States Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of a group of insurers, arguing that an insurer’s gross assets or policyholders’ surplus should not be a basis for affirming a punitive damages award.
Read More...
