Appellate

A cohesive litigation strategy that gets results, from trial through appeal.

We combine appellate skill with significant trial experience.

Our appellate attorneys provide sound analysis and strategy, write effective briefs, and deliver compelling oral arguments.

We are experienced at anticipating possible appellate challenges at the trial level, laying the foundation for legal arguments and preserving issues for review on appeal.

Led by California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist Marc Eisenhart, our attorneys have won appeals in multiple practice areas, firmly establishing our reputation as respected advocates in both the trial court and on appeal.

Our appellate attorneys are proud to have argued before numerous appellate courts, including the following:

  • The United States Supreme Court
  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • The Utah Supreme Court
  • California Courts of Appeal

Not only are our attorneys successful in cases where we have represented our clients in the trial court, but they are often hired after a judgment or appealable order has been entered for the express purpose of representing the client in the appeal.

  • Led by California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist Marc Eisenhart.
  • Our attorneys have won appeals in multiple practice areas, establishing our reputation as formidable advocates.
  • Argued in multiple jurisdictions at various court levels.

Successes

The power of appeal.

In Meyers v. Board of Administration for the Federated City Employees Retirement Fund (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 250, we won a published reversal for the plaintiff, a public employee who was injured on the job and subsequently denied disability retirement benefits, first by the City of San Jose, and then by the trial court in his administrative mandate petition. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial court’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Read the opinion here.

In Swift v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 878, our attorneys won a published reversal of the trial court’s order striking the tenant plaintiffs’ peremptory disqualification of the judge as untimely. The Court of Appeal held that the tenants’ disqualification of the trial judge was timely, even though that judge had presided over earlier discovery motions, since such motions do not involve the determination of fact issues as to the merits of the case. Read the opinion here.

In Murray’s Iron Works, Inc. v. Boyce (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1279, our attorneys won a published reversal of the trial court’s order granting a contractor statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeal held that Civil Code §3260.1, which applies to construction contracts involving “progress” payments, does not apply to construction contracts where the only payments are either down payments or payments upon completion. Read the opinion here.

In Gonzales v. Police Department, City of San Jose, California (9th Cir. 1990) 901 F.2d 758, our attorneys, representing the employee, won a published reversal of the district court’s denial of an employee’s discrimination claims. The employee, a Hispanic person, claimed he was skipped over for promotion because of his race. He pointed to the fact that every time he was denied promotion, his employer failed to follow its affirmative action program designed to encourage the promotion of minorities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of San Jose’s failure to follow its own affirmative action program constituted significant evidence in a Title VII suit against it. The Court also called into doubt the relevance of the City’s post-lawsuit promotion of other minority employees, finding that “curative measures simply do not tend to prove that a prior violation did not occur.” Read the opinion here.

In Pecoraro v. GBR Magic Sands MHP LLC (2016, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H040008), our attorneys were part of a team that won affirmance of a judgment following a bench trial cancelling a 98-year ground lease entered into in 1963. Like the trial court, the Court of Appeal rejected all of the respondents’ defenses including statute of limitations, res judicata, and contractual estoppel. The Court also rejected the respondents’ attacks on the remedy of lease cancellation as opposed to damages. Read the opinion here.

In Wang v. The TDS Group, Inc. (2014, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H038786), our attorneys won affirmance of the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s post-trial motion for new trial following a multi-million dollar plaintiff’s verdict. The Court of Appeal agreed that the erroneous jury verdict form gave rise to irreconcilably inconsistent jury answers, and thus was “against the law.” Read the opinion here.

In Tamayo v. CordeValle Golf Club, LLC (2013, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H037983), our attorneys, representing the employee, won affirmance of the trial court’s order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the employee’s retaliation claims. The Court of Appeal adopted our trial court arguments that the arbitration provision embedded in the employer’s handbook failed to constitute an enforceable contract where the handbook’s cover page stated that it is not “intended to confer any rights or privileges,” nor “does it constitute a contract of employment,” and that the handbook is “presented as a matter of information only.” Read the opinion here.

In Williams v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. (2007, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H029828), our attorneys won a reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication of the employee’s claim of sexual orientation discrimination. In reversing, the Court of Appeal applied the rule that a senior manager’s discriminatory animus may be imputed to her subordinate decision-makers, thus allowing a jury to find that the adverse employment action was motivated by such illegal animus. Read the opinion here.

In David v. D & D Apparel, Inc. (2007, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H029839), we won affirmance of the trial court’s order in a business dispute granting the defendant relief from default. In affirming, the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion where the defendant’s prior counsel’s default was based upon that attorney’s terminal illness. Read the opinion here.

In Crediford v. Oliver (2000, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H021709), we staved off a petition for coram vobis relief, collaterally attacking a nearly half-million dollar judgment in favor of a pair of residential tenants who won the largest known retaliatory eviction verdict in Santa Clara County.

We successfully won reversal of a $1,100,000 judgment against our client. A shareholder filed a derivative suit claiming usurpation of corporate opportunity and a breach of fiduciary duty during a real estate purchase and development project against our client. The trial court awarded Plaintiff $660,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages as an individual shareholder in that derivative suit. On appeal, GED convinced the Sixth District that the trial court was incorrect in awarding fees to an individual shareholder in a derivative action, and that there was no substantial evidence showing a fiduciary relationship with our client to establish a duty in the first instance. Ultimately, the entire judgment against our client was reversed. Read the opinions here.

GED successfully won reversal of an attorneys’ fee award of close to $700,000 against its client. A limited partner in a real estate development project had sued multiple general partners regarding claims about various partnership agreements. The limited partner voluntarily dismissed its case, but the trial court awarded the general partners attorneys’ fees. GED, led by its certified appellate specialist Marc Eisenhart, and argued by Steven McLellan, convinced the Court of Appeal that the trial court erred in awarding such fees. Read the opinion here.

GED won a rare order of dismissal of appeal based upon the appellant’s failure to satisfactorily argue error from the order from which appeal was taken. Read the opinion here.

This appeal followed a trial involving complex, real property disputes over co-ownership and mesne profits (profits earned from a person possessing land to the wrongful exclusion of others). After prevailing at trial, the Los Angeles appellate court affirmed most of the judgment while remanding the case to the trial court to retry only the damages portion of the case. The powerful outcome of this appeal was to affirm GED’s clients’ right to both possess a significant piece of commercial real property, and to enjoy 50% of the profits therefrom. Read the opinion here.

GED represented a closely held corporation who sued its former President for taking a $5 million cash out loan against the company’s primary real estate asset, keeping the money for himself. After the company sued the former president, the trial court issued a plethora of rulings over an incredible two years of defendant’s pleading attacks, chipping away at the company’s claim until, finally, judgment was entered against the company. On appeal, Marc Eisenhart argued that each and every one of the lower court’s rulings were based on a misapplication of the sham pleading rule, as well as other legal errors. The San Francisco Court of Appeal agreed with every argument, and REVERSED all lower court rulings, reinstating the company’s lawsuit in full.

Get in touch

Here for you when you need us most.