Practice Leader: Rita Gunasekaran
Attorneys: View Attorneys in this PracticeHaight Brown & Bonesteel’s appellate practice group offers a fresh perspective on the legal issues to be considered by the appellate courts and the expertise required in the special procedural rules that must be followed. Services offered by our attorneys include:
Our appellate attorneys have 120 years of combined legal experience and represent multi-national insurance companies, public entities, individuals, sole proprietorships and Fortune 500 companies. They have handled some 2000 appeals, resulting in over 375 published decisions in diverse areas of law including:
Landmark appeals and recent significant published decisions:
Product Liability and Tort
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 (Amicus)
The Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court erred in ordering that an opinion letter written by outside counsel to Costco management be reviewed in camera by a discovery referee, redacted, and then disclosed to plaintiffs. The unredacted portions of the letter contained facts the attorney used to form the basis of his advice to Costco regarding whether employees should be classified as exempt or non-exempt. The Supreme Court held that the letter was protected by the attorney-client privilege and that the trial court could not review the letter in camera because it was absolutely privileged.
Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83
Under the California Government Tort Claims Act, the six month deadline to file a complaint after the denial of a petition for relief from the claim filing requirement is not met by filing a motion to correct the plaintiff's erroneous earlier dismissal of the lawsuit. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal. The opinion is cited in Rutter Group's California Practice Guide - Civil Procedure Before Trial and in Matthew Bender’s Practice Guide: California Trial and Post-Trial Civil Procedure.
Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403
The $3.75 million default judgment against Rue McClanahan for alleged slander, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress was reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that actual notice is insufficient when the statutory requirements for service are not met.
Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350
Represented California Federal Bank, FSB before the California Supreme Court and obtained affirmance of summary judgment in a case holding that the privilege embodied within Civil Code Section 47(b) bars claims arising from an allegedly false report to the police regarding suspected criminal conduct. As a result, the bank and its teller were not liable to an innocent customer who attempted to pass a suspicious check, when the police handcuffed and questioned the customer at the branch after being notified by the teller of an attempted fraud.
Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 472
When a police officer responded to a report of a knife-stabbing incident at a restaurant, a restaurant employee threw hot oil at the officer. The officer sued the restaurant owners for vicarious liability and judgment was entered in his favor. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that, instructing the jury that the employee's conduct was within the scope of his employment as a matter of law was prejudicial error.
Professional Liability
Cassel v. Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, LLP (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 152, rev. granted February 3, 2010, S17894
In this legal malpractice action, the trial court ruled that certain private conversations between the plaintiff and attorney defendants were for the purpose of the mediation, and thus were inadmissible under the mediation confidentiality statutes. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that private conversations concerning mediation are not "for the purpose of" mediation if they did not occur in front of the mediator or opponent, and thus are not confidential. We successfully obtained an order from the California Supreme Court granting review to determine if the broad language of the mediation confidentiality statutes allowed the exception created by the Court of Appeal.
Valentine v. Membrila Ins. Services, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 462
An altercation erupted in a restaurant parking lot and plaintiff was shot in the back and rendered a paraplegic. She sued the restaurant, but its liability policy excluded coverage for assault and battery. The restaurant owners then sued their insurance broker, assigned the cause of action to plaintiff, and entered into a stipulated judgment against themselves for $6 million. The Court of Appeal held that the stipulated judgment did not create a presumption of liability and consequently the insurance broker was entitled to judgment in his favor.
Risk Management and Insurance
Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. v. Cen-Fed, Ltd. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 976
The insurer was held liable for attorneys fees and costs incurred by its insured in an underlying action under its supplementary payment provision despite the fact that it had obtained a favorable ruling that there was no coverage under its policy for the underlying claim. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, and compelled enforcement of the policy’s "Supplementary Payments Provision." Following the successful appeal against the insured, HB&B filed an action and successfully recouped more than $1 million for the insurer.
Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1 (Amicus)
The Supreme Court held that the insurer has no duty to defend claims for emotional and physical distress where the standard CGL policy language did not provide coverage for economic losses that cause emotional distress.
Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287
The Supreme Court overruled its prior opinion in Royal Globe v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880, and held that Insurance Code § 790.03(h) does not provide a private cause of action against insurers for violation of the Unfair Practices Act.
In addition to significant appellate victories, members of the appellate practice group have also successfully overturned multi-million dollar jury verdicts through their post-trial motions; safeguarded their clients' rights and privileges by obtaining extraordinary relief; and presented informative seminars to in-house counsel and trial attorneys on cutting edge issues of law.
