Appellate Cases Handled

Musser v. Provencher (2002) 28 Cal.4th 274

California Supreme Court

Type of case: Indemnity

One attorney sought indemnity against another attorney following her settlement of a malpractice claim brought by their mutual client. The Supreme Court held that a claim for equitable Indemnity against co-counsel did not violate public policy.

J.B. v. United States, 916 F3d. 1161 (2019)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Type of case: Taxation

The IRS failed to provide reasonable notice in advance to taxpayer before issuing summons to third parties.

Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. JKT (not reported)

Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, case no. 20-16366

Type of case: Insurance coverage

Our client was a small, locally-owned landscaping business insured under a policy issued by Atain. Our client was sued in the Napa County Superior Court for allegedly causing a landslide due to its landscaping activities. Atain denied coverage for the loss and filed a declaratory relief action in the District Court. However, the District Court held that Atain’s policy did not cover land subsidence damages. We appealed, contending that the exclusions under Atain’s policy did not apply. The Ninth Circuit held that the policy excluded damages for land subsidence and upheld the trial court’s decision.

Perez v. Kaiser (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 645

First District Court of Appeal

Type of case: Arbitration

Employee brought action against employer's health care service plan to recover for negligence and fraud arising out of failure to timely diagnose and treat daughter's cancer. The Superior Court, Sonoma County, No. SCV-261649, Jennifer V. Dollard, J., granted plan's motion to compel arbitration and later denied employee's motion to vacate arbitration award in favor of plan. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that arbitrator did not have a duty to disclose post-appointment results of arbitration cases that were pending at time of appointment.

Marriage of Honer (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 687

First District Court of Appeal

Type of case: Family law

In this dissolution action, the Superior Court divided community assets between husband and wife, denied wife's motion to reopen the evidence to allow updated financial statements to be taken into account in dividing the community property, sanctioned wife for bringing the motion by requiring her to pay husband's attorney fees incurred in opposing the motion, and awarded wife attorney fees based on need. Wife appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the evidence supported valuation of the parties’ supermarket business; the trial court was not required to reopen the evidence to allow updated financial statements to be taken into account; and the trial court acted within its discretion in selecting a distribution of community property that granted both the primary business and the primary residence to husband.

Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507

First District Court of Appeal

Type of case: Family law, civility

In this action for dissolution of marriage, the trial court denied wife's motion for sanctions, granted husband's motion for sanctions, and granted attorney fees to husband. Wife appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court was presumed to abide by the rule of law in denying wife's motions to exclude evidence; the trial court did not improperly fail to abide by the rule of law in denying wife's motions to exclude evidence; Husband gave adequate notice of his request for sanctions; substantial evidence supported the finding that wife frustrated policy of promoting settlement of and reducing cost of litigation; and substantial evidence supported the finding that Husband did not act in such a way as to trigger sanctions.

Bonfigli v. Strachan (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1302

First District Court of Appeal

Type of case: Fraud, elder abuse

Elderly owners of real property sued developers for fraud, concealment, false promises, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, and financial elder abuse. The Superior Court, Sonoma County, granted directed verdict for developers on elder abuse claim and entered judgment on jury verdicts for developers. Residents appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the developers' power of attorney (POA) with respect to two parcels was coupled with an option to purchase, which terminated when they transferred the option to purchase; a power coupled with an interest is extinguished when the interest in the subject matter terminates; the trial court's error in instructing the jury that that POA was valid was prejudicial; and the owners stated a claim for financial elder abuse.

London v. Citibank (unpublished)

First District Court of Appeal, case no. A159383.

Type of case: Breach of mortgage modification

Our client obtained modification of his home mortgage. His mortgage was then sold to a new investor and assigned a new servicer. The servicer refused to honor his modification, so London sued. The servicer sought summary judgment which the trial court granted. London retained Evans Kingsbury LLP as appellate counsel and we were able to get the judgment reversed and the case remanded back to the trial court.

Simon v. Superior Court (unpublished)

First District Court of Appeal, case no. A151816

Type of case: Breach of contract

Modification by a third party of a written note was not enforceable against appellant.

Ratterree v. Federal National Mortgage Association (unpublished)

Third District Court of Appeal, case no. C076727

Type of case: Foreclosure

Ratterree lost his residence through nonjudicial foreclosure by respondents Federal National Mortgage Association and Seterus, Incorporated. After the foreclosure, Ratterree sued the respondents for violating the Homeowner's Bill of Rights (HBOR) and for wrongful foreclosure. Respondents demurred to Ratterree's second amended complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision.

In re Mildred Vail Living Trust (not published)

First District Court of Appeal, case. No. A149796

Type of case: Trust litigation

Following a bench trial, the superior court entered a judgment requiring appellant to reimburse his deceased mother's trust for amounts he withdrew from trust accounts while acting as the trustee during her lifetime. Appellant contended the judgment must be reversed because the evidence showed he acted with his mother's permission at all times and because a claim for some of the amounts at issue is barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Coastal Hills Rural Preservation v. County of Sonoma (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1234

First District Court of Appeal

Type of case: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Court of appeal upheld County’s approval of a printing operation at a religious retreat in the coast hills despite fire danger. This decision was depublished by the California Supreme Court.

Marriage of Degenhardt and Nugent (unpublished)

First District Court of Appeal, Case no. A156223

Type of case: Family law

Wife was not barred by promissory estoppel to deny the validity of the marriage and the terms of the parties’ prenuptial agreement.

Institute of Imaginal Studies, Inc. v. Institute of Noetic Science (unpublished)

California Court of Appeal, First District, Case no. A146122

Type of case: Breach of contract

The parties entered into a Letter of Intent to build and operate a learning facility, the terms of which IIS sought to enforce. The trial court sustained a demurrer to much of IIS’ complaint, holding that the statute of limitations barred IIS’ claims. Following trial, the court found for IONS. On appeal, IIS contended that IONS misled IIS to its detriment and that the statute of limitations was tolled. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision.

Marriage of Sadri and Rezvani (unpublished)

California Court of Appeal, First District, case no. A147796

Type of case: Family law

Evidence supported characterization of real property as a community asset.

Kermaninejad v. Kappos (unpublished)

California Court of Appeal, First District, case no. A146031

Type of case: anti-SLAPP; sanctions

The trial court denied the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and sanctioned one of the defendants’ attorneys. On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court improperly relied upon hearsay and opinion testimony from the plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court of Appeal sustained the trial court’s denial of the motion but overturned the trial court’s sanctions order.

Schwede v. Barrett (unpublished)

California Court of Appeal, First District, Case no. A103394

Type of case: Costs and attorneys’ fees

Denial of attorneys’ fees was proper because both parties achieved their litigation objectives.