Our California Offices
gears image
Solving legal
problems for
our clients
since 1950

Appellate

Chair:
415.887.8071

The civil appellate practice handles the full spectrum of the appeals process in the state and federal courts of California, from the trial court level through the final appellate decision. Our appellate attorneys work closely with our trial attorneys to evaluate issues that are raised during trial to ensure that they are preserved in the event of appeal. We also work closely with our clients to identify any trial court errors that may give rise to reversal on appeal. Our appellate attorneys coordinate with our trial attorneys and clients to evaluate the likelihood of success and the cost of appealing to determine whether appellate relief should be pursued.

We have handled a wide variety of appellate matters over the years, including appellate procedure, premises liability, products liability, and professional liability. Some of the firmís appellate victories where Ericksen Arbuthnot represented its clients throughout the litigation process include:

  • Naser v. Lakeridge (2014) (published in part) 2014 WL 2922405 (The First Appellate District affirmed the trial courtís order granting summary judgment and awarding deposition subpoena costs in favor of defendant health club);
  • Good v. Miller (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 472 (published) (The Third Appellate Court dismissed our opponentís defective appeal from the trial courtís order issuing terminating sanctions for abuse of discovery process;
  • Ramirez v. On Assignment (2013) Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 940 (The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial courtís order granting motion for summary judgment on behalf of a nurse in a wrongful death case);
  • Medrano v. Flagstar Bank FSB (2012) ____ F.3d ____ (9th Cir.) (published) (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the district courtís order dismissing claims against real estate agents); and
  • Sudol v. Sage-DeLuca Associates (2012) C071003 (The Third Appellate District issued a Palma order indicating its intent to issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance reversing the trial courtís order denying defendantís motion for summary judgment).