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 pride ourselves in producing good results for our clients. Below are selected examples of our clients’ recent victories on appeal. Click the links to read more details.

Hart v. Special Electric (2018)

Horvitz & Levy prevails on statute of repose issue in asbestos lawsuit.

Hais v. Universal Protection Service LP (2018)

Horvitz & Levy successfully defends summary judgment in premises liability case.

Kaur v. Broadbase (2018)

Horvitz & Levy obtains dismissal of appeal in wrongful death suit.

Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc. (2018)

California Court of Appeal affirms judgment for hotel in FEHA case.

Menera v. Mega R.V. Corp. (2018)

Horvitz & Levy preserves defense verdict in products liability case.

San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions (2018)

Ninth Circuit saves defendants from financial ruin by staying enforcement of trademark infringement injunction and $4 million judgment pending appeal.

McDonold v. Superior Court (2018)

Court of Appeal affirms that counsel for an excess insurer did not represent its insureds as joint clients in a tripartite relationship when attempting to negotiate a settlement on their behalf.

Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego County (2018)

Court of Appeal upholds finding that YMCA owed no duty to use automated external defibrillator.

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.

Rudolph v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc (2018)

Court of Appeal rejects plaintiffs' attempt to circumvent workers' compensation exclusive-remedy rule in take-home asbestos case

Page 15 of 33