Practices in California & Beyond

State Decisions with a National Legacy

Courts around the nation watch for the judicial firsts decided by the California Courts of Appeal. Its legacy of leadership includes controversial rulings on the removal of feeding tubes by a seriously ill person and the right to bequeath sperm in a will.

Seen as the backbone of the state’s judicial system, the California appellate courts, California Supreme Court, and the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are home to significant victories for Archer Norris clients. All of which stands us in good stead when we are asked to handle cases in other jurisdictions. Recently, for example, we won an appellate decision against telecom giant Comcast in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Focused on Persuasive Second-Look Arguments 

Appellate arguments require an approach that differs dramatically from the lower court trial strategies. Unique writing and oral advocacy skills that deconstruct cases down to the most important and pertinent facts are essential.   

Our appellate practice is led by a Certified Legal Specialist in Appellate Law, a designation by the State Bar Board of Legal Specialization earned by less than one percent of licensed California attorneys.  

A Record of Excellence Before the Higher Courts

The Archer Norris appellate team represents clients within our firm, frequently in circumstances where we were original trial counsel. We also work extensively and collaboratively with outside trial counsel requiring a new perspective on a case outcome. 

Many of our appellate achievements reflect the core practice strengths of Archer Norris. We have obtained precedent-setting and published decisions on complex cases facing clients with interests in insurance, construction and real estate. 

NameTitlePhoneEmailV-card
Blumhardt, W. Eric Partner925.952.5408 vcard
Gallagher, Erin Associate925.930.6600 vcard
Li, Teresa Associate925.952.5509 vcard
Marchiano, David Associate925.930.6600 vcard
Mondescu, Ioana Special Counsel925.930.6600 vcard
Speer, Kymberly Special Counsel925.930.6600 vcard
Stargardter, GailAnn Partner925.930.6600 vcard
Straus, Douglas Partner925.952.5531 vcard
Thames, Jonathan Partner925.930.6600 vcard
Tonsing, Jon Partner925.930.6600 vcard
Watt, Gary A. Partner925.930.6600 vcard

Easement Claim

  • Baca v. Matheson et al. (2010): The case involves a commercial real estate easement dispute. Archer Norris successfully represented local manufacturer Bob Matheson and his company, Protein Research, in a three-week bench trial to decide the equitable issues, and a subsequent jury trial to decide the legal issues. In an unpublished opinion, the First District, Court of Appeal concluded the trial court correctly interpreted the deed establishing the easement. The successful outcome resolved a major issue, with potentially substantial financial ramifications, for our client.

Protections for Immigration Proceedings

  • Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 06-75728 (2010): In conjunction with the UC Hastings Appellate Project, successfully represented Ms. Hernandez Velasquez in a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopoen and reinstate proceedings, which the BIA construed as a motion to reissue its decision denying her administrative appeal. The case was remanded to the BIA on the grounds the agency abused its discretion in failing to discuss Ms. Hernandez Velasquez’s declaration and the attached photocopied Change of Address form in its decision, thereby failing to consider the “weight and consequences” of that evidence in its denial of her motion to reopen

Statute of Limitations

  • Gondogdu v. King Mai, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 310: Representing a builder sued for construction defects, the court of appeal upheld summary judgment in favor of the builder finding that the action was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations in Code Civ. Proc. §337.15, notwithstanding the fact that the builder owned the property for almost a year and a half from the time the construction was complete until the owners purchased it. The owners alleged damages from work during construction of the building

Real Estate Appraisal/Arbitral Immunity

  • Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120: Our firm obtained a judgment of dismissal from the trial court based upon arbitral immunity; that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court denied the appellants' petition for review. The case involved a real estate appraiser’s work in a fire insurance claim.

Government Tort Claims

  • Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 276: Representing a general contractor against the City of Berkeley involving the proper interpretation and application of California’s Government Tort Claims Act

Privette/Toland Doctrine

  • Madden v. Summit View, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1267: In affirming summary judgment in favor of our client, the opinion clarified existing law regarding the Privette/Toland doctrine and the level of affirmative conduct necessary to impose liability on a general contractor for injuries to an employee of a subcontractor

ADA Claim

  • Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 254: Opinion addressed the application of the California Disabled Persons Act

Contribution/Subrogation

  • West Coast Fire v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (2006) 2006 WL 1076756: This unpublished opinion addressed the doctrines of contribution and subrogation (and their differences) in the context of a dispute between co-insurers

Insureds’ Privacy

  • Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 807: The opinion addressed the propriety of the issuance of legislative subpoenas to insurance carriers to obtain records pertaining to their insureds allegedly responsible for environmental contamination

No Action Clause

  • Harbor Insurance Co. v. City of Ontario (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 927: The opinion addressed the obligation of an insured to cooperate with its insurer and affirmed the insurer’s right to negotiate a settlement on behalf of its insured, under a policy with a substantial self-insured retention
  • Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 782: The opinion addressed the application of the “no action” clause of a CGL policy
  • Syufy Enterprises v. St. Paul Surplus Lines (9th Cir. 1996) 73 F. 3d 1154