We have an extensive appellate practice, employing our exceptional written advocacy and deep understanding of crucial legal issues. The firm’s appellate practice, which focuses on persuading judges, requires a different perspective than that of trial practice, which focuses on establishing facts and persuading a jury.
In just the past couple of years, our lawyers have briefed and argued several appeals—including three in the Ninth Circuit and two in the California Courts of Appeal. We have won all of them.
Representative Matters – Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- LTL attorneys secured the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of a judgment dismissing Former Olympic figure skater Oksana Baiul’s lawsuit against LTL client NBC Sports regarding $10M in royalty payments for the 1994 “Nutcracker on Ice” television special. In a unanimous ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court did not err in dismissing Baiul’s suit as time-barred and subject to claim preclusion. LTL Partner Prashanth Chennakesavan argued the matter on appeal.
- A team of LTL attorneys attained the Ninth Circuit’s unanimous affirmance of a decision in favor of LTL client, Pinkette Clothing Inc. LTL’s appellate team defended the work done by its trial team in the District Court,
- LTL attorneys won an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Appellee The Elvis Presley Estates. In a 3-0 decision, Judges Pamela Rymer, Andrew Kleinfeld, and Barry Silverman agreed with us that defendants engaged in fraudulent conveyances to avoid a multi-million dollar copyright judgment.
- LTL Partner Enoch Liang argued a complicated trademark matter before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judges Pregerson, Reinhardt, and Wardlaw). The issues on appeal involved trademark priority, territoriality, and fraud on the Trademark Office. By a 2-1 vote, the Court ruled in favor of our client, and reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.
- In early March 2010, the firm argued an anti-SLAPP appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judges Tunheim, Canby, and Fletcher). Below, we had obtained a complete anti-SLAPP victory for our client, including an award of attorneys’ fees. The losing plaintiff below appealed. The decision was upheld
- In January 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment that we obtained for our client, the defendant in a copyright and trade dress lawsuit. Firm partner Enoch H. Liang defended Bedrosian’s (in Orange County) and Hirsch Glass Company (in New Jersey) both before the District Court and the Ninth Circuit.
Representative Matters – California Courts of Appeal
- LTL prevailed on appeal before the Second District Court of Appeal for its client in a probate matter, obtaining the affirmance of the trial court’s order denying a spousal property petition after a three-day trial—also handled by LTL attorneys.
- LTL attained affirmance of an order granting our client’s anti-SLAPP motion and attorney’s fees in a negligent misrepresentation suit which sought punitive damages.
- We were less than one month before trial in a case involving a multi-million dollar corporate fraud dispute. We successfully moved to disqualify opposing counsel on the grounds that he previously represented one of the individual defendants. The disqualified counsel appealed, we filed a responsive brief with the California Court of Appeal and the disqualification order was affirmed.
- LTL attorneys attained a unanimous jury verdict of over $1.6 million on behalf of our client after a hard fought 6-day trial in the Orange County Superior Court. The award included punitive damages, after the jury found on clear and convincing evidence that that Defendants acted with fraud, malice or oppression. Defendants appealed on the basis that 1) the trial court erred in excluding certain testimony from the defendants’ prior attorney, which they claimed prejudiced defendants, 2) the evidence was insufficient to justify the jury’s findings, 3) certain financial evidence should have been excluded, and 4) the plaintiff’s amendment of his complaint on the third day of trial was improper. In November 2012, the California Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court’s findings on all counts, and also ruled that Plaintiff is entitled to his costs on appeal.
- LTL was retained to handle an appeal after the client, represented by another firm, lost a jury verdict of several hundred thousand dollars. LTL attorneys prepared the appellate brief, which was then argued before a panel of the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal in early 2010. The panel subsequently issued a decision reversing the verdict and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff agreed to reduce the damages award to $4,000.
- LTL previously prosecuted and argued an appeal concerning the application of California’s Arbitration Act. The appeal resulted in a published opinion, which can be found at 150 Cal. App. 4th 1311 (2007).