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.

Karen M. Bray

Karen M. Bray

Partner - Los Angeles Office

How Karen Helps Clients

Clients and trial counsel often leverage Karen Bray’s proficiency in identifying and preserving issues for potential appellate review. In that capacity, she has assisted trial counsel in a vast array of cases with summary judgment motions, motions in limine, jury instructions, trial briefs, verdict forms, and post-trial motions. She has also represented clients embroiled in complex appeals involving a variety of torts, Proposition 213’s bar against recovery of noneconomic damages by uninsured motorists, discovery sanctions, Proposition 51 and fault apportionment, punitive damages, breach of contract, insurance coverage and bad faith, default judgments, premises liability, and evolving law concerning the evidence admissible and the amount recoverable for medical expense damages. Clients also rely on Karen to provide candid assessments concerning the likelihood of securing relief on appeal, allowing them to realistically evaluate when settlement will be in their best interests.

Karen is a managing partner at the firm, where she has focused on appellate litigation and trial consulting since 2000.  Prior to joining the firm, Karen was a Litigation Associate with Perkins Coie.

Representative Matters

Mann v. The Regents of the University of California (2021)
Court of Appeal affirms judgment on FEHA claims for the UC Regents, finding no error or prejudice in verdict form or jury instructions.

Pinto v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2021)
Court of Appeal holds that an insurer’s failure to accept a reasonable settlement demand is not per se unreasonable, disapproving a controversial CACI instruction suggesting a strict liability standard for bad faith failure to settle claims.

Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019)
California Court of Appeal affirmed judgment allocating eighty percent of fault to the plaintiff who darted into the street on his bicycle.

Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017)
California Court of Appeal reversed an award of $9.6 million for future medical expenses to permit evidence of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act benefits.

Rainwater v. Sergios' El Ranchito, Inc. (2017)
Unpublished decision from California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for restaurant that employee was not acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of car accident.

Contreras-Madrigal v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center (2014)
Unpublished decision from California Court of Appeal affirming defense judgment in birth injury medical malpractice action.

Stasz v. Nejat (2012)
California Court of Appeal unpublished decision affirming defense judgment following orders granting anti-SLAPP motion and sustaining demurrers without leave to amend.

Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2010)
California Court of Appeal issued writ of mandate, directing trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer in coverage dispute.

New Albertson, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008)
California Court of Appeal reversed trial court’s refusal to allow withdrawal of mistaken admission and trial court’s imposition of issue and evidence sanctions.

Henry v. Superior Court (2008)
California Court of Appeal held that defendant premises owners are entitled to introduce evidence of medical malpractice by a treating physician and to seek a fault apportionment against that physician so as to limit the premise owners’ liability for noneconomic damages under Proposition 51.

Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2007)
California Court of Appeal affirmed trial court’s determination that a single “occurrence” took place because all of the loss incurred resulted from a single cause and thus the primary insurer owed only a single policy limit.

Salter v. Zeldin (2007)
Unpublished decision from California Court of Appeal upholding trial court’s decision to grant relief from default and default judgment.

Barton Properties, Inc. v. Superior Gunite Co. (2006)
Unpublished decision from California Court of Appeal affirming determination that subcontractor did not breach contract.

Wentworth v. Sierra North Village Homeowners Ass’n (2004)
California Court of Appeal unpublished decision affirming JNOV entered in favor of homeowners association in premises liability action arising from a third party’s criminal conduct.

Kalbak v. Chavez (2003)
California Court of Appeal unpublished decision reversing trial court’s order refusing to vacate default and default judgment.


  • University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law
    J.D., Editor in Chief of the Law Review, 1993
  • University of California, Los Angeles
    B.A./B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude, 1990


  • Hon. Arthur L. Alarcon, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (1993-1994)

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Professional Associations