Capstone Law’s Appeals & Complex Motions Practice assists the firm’s trial litigators with the appellate review process and the defense of favorable judgments and orders. The attorneys also aid with strategy and briefing at the trial level. The firm is unique in both the size and focus of this practice, with several highly experienced and knowledgeable attorneys concentrating on writs and appeals, arbitration and the resolution of jurisdiction-related issues.
The team’s reach extends throughout California, with attorneys arguing and briefing appeals in state courts, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the California Supreme Court. Our attorneys are also experienced with California’s complex writ procedures, having successfully obtained extraordinary writ relief on multiple occasions.
The firm is also no stranger to handling matters that shape the law. Capstone currently has a high-profile case pending before the California Supreme Court – Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles – which will likely be decisive in determining the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context. And in 2011, prior to joining Capstone Law, several of the attorneys in the department helped obtain the California Court of Appeal’s first major statement on the reach of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion v. AT&T. In Brown v. Ralphs Grocery, these attorneys persuaded the Court of Appeal that Concepcion does not apply to representative actions brought pursuant to PAGA.
The department’s attorneys have also been trailblazers in the area of challenging federal jurisdiction, successfully returning cases to state court when jurisdiction is lacking. In March 2013, our attorneys argued the pivotal case Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit will decide whether PAGA penalties may be aggregated for purposes of satisfying the statutory amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. This is an issue of first impression, and will determine whether most PAGA claims may be removed by corporate defendants to federal court.
Demonstrating their ability to think creatively, the team has crafted legal arguments to contest defendants’ arguments that PAGA is unconstitutional, including in one instance, taking the unusual step of submitting an amicus brief in a California trial court (Hamilton v. Whole Foods). These arguments persuaded not only the Hamilton court to reject such defense arguments, but have likewise persuaded several trial courts in subsequent cases.
Whether a case involves charting new ground or effectively applying existing law, Capstone’s Appeals & Complex Motions department has the talent, dedication and resources to obtain outstanding results.
To discuss a potential appeal on an existing matter, or simply learn more about this department, please contact us directly.