Supreme Court permits statutory reduction of Three Strikes sentence that dissent calls an “endorse[ment] [of] legislative overreach”

Robert H. Wright

Partner
Los Angeles
rwright@horvitzlevy.com
818.995.0800

Clients leverage Robert Wright’s expertise in handling appeals and writs on a range of issues including products liability, torts, and damages.

Robert has presented over 30 arguments before the state and federal appellate courts, including arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and each of the districts of the California Court of Appeal.

Robert has been counsel of record in closely-watched cases raising issues of statewide importance, including recent cases addressing the lawfulness of exclusivity provisions in contracts between businesses (Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 155) and the measure of damages for future medical care (Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 163).

Robert is a partner at the firm, where he has been practicing since 1999. He is one of the firm’s managing partners. On behalf of the Department of Legal Specialization, State Bar of California, he has prepared questions for the legal specialist exam in appellate law. He is also a California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist.

Before joining the firm, Robert was a litigation associate with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he handled civil litigation, antitrust counseling, and appeals. Robert is a frequent contributor to state and national legal publications and a featured contributor to the Washington Legal Foundation on the issue of Mass Torts-Asbestos.

Credentials

Education

Bar Admissions

Professional Associations

Awards

Representative Matters

Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (2024)

In a published opinion, California Court of Appeal holds that noncompetition provisions are binding on partial owners of a business unless the provisions are unreasonable, reversing confirmation of a $40 million arbitration award.

Patterson v. College Medical Center (2024)

Horvitz & Levy successfully secures writ relief protecting medical center from discovery order compelling it to release psychiatric patients’ contact information.

Gantner v. PG&E (2023)

Supreme Court holds that PG&E is not liable for emergency power shutoffs it implemented to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (South San Joaquin Irrigation District) (2023)

California Court of Appeal holds that, in a utility takings case, a public entity's findings of public necessity and "more necessary public use" are not reviewed by the trial court only for substantial evidence or a gross abuse of discretion.

Webb v. General Cable (2021)

Court of Appeal overturns multi-million dollar jury verdict for lack of substantial evidence in asbestos case.

Quidel v. Superior Court (2020)

After grant of review by California Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal for a second time reversed trial court that had applied a rule of per se invalidity to exclusivity provisions in contracts between businesses

Newman v. Larios (2020)

California Court of Appeal affirms judgment based on insurer’s acceptance of plaintiff’s tactical settlement offer

Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2020)

Representing amicus curiae, Horvitz & Levy successfully argues in California Supreme Court that statute authorizing heightened damages for injury to trees does not apply to trees damaged by negligently spread fires

Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp. (2019)

Horvitz & Levy obtains affirmance of jury verdict finding trucking company not liable for catastrophic freeway accident

Villa Riviera Condominium Association v. Spectra Company et al. (2019)

California Court of Appeal affirms judgment for subcontractor in construction defect action.

Hake v. Allied Fluid Products Corp. (2018)

Court of Appeal affirms nonsuit on ground that plaintiff's "every exposure" theory was insufficient to prove causation under Kansas law.

Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017)

California Court of Appeal requires retrial of future medical expense claim to permit evidence of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act benefits

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016)

Court of Appeal reverses denial of summary judgment for fitness center

Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013)

California Court of Appeal holds that evidence of “billed” but unpaid medical expenses is not admissible to prove future medical damages or noneconomic damages.

Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. et al. (2011)

California Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeal opinion that permitted plaintiff to proceed with putative class action more than five years after filing complaint.

Collins v. Plant Insulation Company (2010)

California Court of Appeal reverses $1.9 million judgment in asbestos action and orders new trial on allocation of fault.

Publications