Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.


We routinely litigate appeals raising claims under various consumer protection statutes. We have particular expertise in responding to claims under the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.), and we have filed briefs in the California Supreme Court in many of the path-breaking UCL cases, including In re Tobacco Cases II (Brown) (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, In re Tobacco Cases II (Daniels) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, and Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254.

In addition to our in-depth work on UCL cases, we handle cases for defendants facing claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the False Claims Act (FCA), the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.), and more.

Contact Lisa Perrochet or John A. Taylor, Jr. for more information about our Consumer Law practice.

Fishback v. FCA

Court of Appeal holds that trial court was not required to “show its work” when reducing or disallowing plaintiff’s attorney fees

Read More

Ruiz Nunez v. FCA USA LLC

Court of Appeal limits express warranty claims against auto manufacturers for failed repairs and holds they owe no implied warranty on sales of used cars

Read More

Montoya v. Ford

Court of Appeal reverses judgment for plaintiff in lemon law case, rejecting statute of limitations tolling based on plaintiff’s membership in successively filed class actions

Read More

Kealy v. Ford Motor Credit Company

Horvitz & Levy obtains reversal of jury verdict finding Ford Credit responsible for erroneous credit reporting and secures an affirmance of the dismissal of plaintiff’s Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) claim before trial

Read More

Zubin v. Toyota Motor Sales

Court of Appeal affirms favorable judgment for Toyota in Lemon Law case.

Read More

Steele v. Bell-Carter Foods

California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in products liability and warranty action against olive producer.

Read More

Sarkisyan v. Newport Insurance Company

Court of Appeal affirms denial of class certification in favor of insurance company based on plaintiff’s failure to prove existence of ascertainable class and sufficient community of interest

Read More

RunflatAmerica, LLC v. Michelin North America, Inc. et al.

California Court of Appeal rules for defendants in a shareholder derivative action brought by the former CEO of a company, who alleged his company should have sued the defendants for perceived business torts.

Read More

Cryoport Systems v. CNA Insurance Companies et al.

California Court of Appeal holds that a plaintiff without standing of its own under Proposition 64 may not conduct discovery to find a substitute plaintiff in order to keep a UCL action alive.

Read More

Tutor-Saliba-Perini v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

California Court of Appeal reverses $60 million False Claims Act judgment against construction contractor.

Read More

Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

California Supreme Court holds that replacement or restitution remedy is not required under California’s lemon law for breach of a service contract.

Read More

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC

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.

Read More

Nelson v. Pearson Ford

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

Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers)

California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that insurers provide neither "goods" nor "services," and thus are not subject to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Read More

In re Tobacco II (Brown)

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.

Read More