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.


View Opinion View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the Court of Appeal to affirm a small judgment in a case in which the plaintiff sought over $8 million.  The court rejected plaintiff’s claims that a new trial was required due to an inconsistent verdict and attorney misconduct.

In this personal injury action, the jury rejected plaintiff’s request for a multi-million dollar award, apportioned 70 percent of fault to the plaintiff, and awarded plaintiff a total of $330,000 in damages. After taking the comparative fault finding into account, the trial court entered in plaintiff’s favor for $99,000. 

Plaintiff appealed, contending that the verdict was inconsistent because, while the jury awarded future medical expenses, it did not award future noneconomic damages.  Horvitz & Levy was retained to defend the judgment on appeal.  The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff’s argument, finding that the $80,000 in future medical damages represented the cost of annual eye examinations and eyeglasses, which were non-invasive treatments and, thus, the award did not imply that plaintiff suffered a physical injury for which an award of future noneconomic damages would be required.  In reaching this conclusion, the court cited Audish v. Macias (May 21, 2024, No. D081689) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2024 WL 2860272], a case that was originally unpublished but was published upon Horvitz & Levy’s request.   

Plaintiff also argued that a new trial was required due to attorney misconduct.  On that issue, the court declined to rule whether there was misconduct—based on defense counsel’s comments in closing argument regarding plaintiff not attending the majority of the trial—and simply held that, even if there was, it was not prejudicial.