Appellate

Oct 12, 2017 | General Articles

Keesal, Young & Logan regularly represents its clients in the state and federal appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, all levels of state appellate courts in California, Washington, and Alaska, and the United States Supreme Court.  The firm’s lawyers have briefed and argued hundreds of appeals and writ petitions covering a broad range of substantive and procedural issues:  securities and financial services, professional malpractice, alternative dispute resolution, arbitration, class actions, employment, governmental, admiralty and environmental.  In the last 10 years alone, these efforts have resulted in more than 50 published decisions and hundreds of unreported decisions.  The firm incorporates its philosophy of practical lawyering into its appellate practice by utilizing its extensive trial court experience to enhance the presentation of cases at the appellate level and by critically evaluating cases on appeal to make prudent recommendations regarding the appellate process.

Among the most recent significant appeals the firm has handled which have resulted in published decisions are the following:

  • Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime LLC, 647 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2011) (Ninth Circuit affirmed order denying arbitration of maritime suit by vessel owner for contribution as a result of grossly negligent salvage operation allegedly causing extensive damage to coral reef.)
  • Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services PTE Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ninth Circuit affirmed order vacating supplier’s maritime attachment of shipowner’s property on the ground that supplier failed to establish prima facie case of breach of contract or unjust enrichment against the shipowner.)
  • ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures, Ltd., 609 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ninth Circuit applied doctrine of equitable vacatur of Supplemental Admiralty Rule B attachments, affirmed vacatur as to one plaintiff, and reversed as to second plaintiff.)
  • Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. M/V Cougar Ace, 565 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2009) (In $80 million cargo case, Ninth Circuit affirmed enforcement of bill of lading’s Tokyo forum selection clause on in rem claims against ship.)
  • Muller v. Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospitals, 172Cal. App. 4th 887 (2009) (Court of Appeal affirmed trial court’s orders granting a new trial on Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim and denying defendants’ motion for sanctions.)
  • Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 586 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2009) (Ninth Circuit affirmed order of the district court dismissing claims based on grounds of forum non conveniens in a multibillion-dollar RICO case arising out of a dispute over the ownership and control of the largest cell phone company inPoland.)
  • Gehr v. Baker Hughes Oil Field Operations, Inc., 165Cal. App. 4th 660 (2008) (Court of Appeal affirmed trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.)
  • Washington State Republican Party v. Washington, 545 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2008) (After remand from the United States Supreme Court (see Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008)), the Ninth Circuit vacated two orders granting attorneys’ fees and costs and remanded case to the district court with instructions to dismiss various claims relating to challenges to initiatives governing federal election laws and campaign financing.)
  • Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (Ninth Circuit affirmed order of district court denying motion to compel arbitration of an ERISA claim brought by an ERISA plan participant who did not personally sign an arbitration agreement.)
  • Teller v. APM Terminals, 134 Wn. App. 696 (Wash. App. 2006) (Court of Appeals reversed judgment of superior court and affirmed state court’s dismissal of claim as time-barred on grounds that “relation back” doctrine did not apply where plaintiff’s failure to timely name proper party defendant was result of inexcusable neglect.)
  • Bergen Industries & Fishing Corp. v. Joint Stock Holding Company Dalmoreproduct, 126 Wn. App. 1039 (Wash. App. 2005), review denied, 2006 Wash. LEXIS 90 (2006) (In a foreign judgment enforcement action, court upheld constitutionality of state garnishment law and affirmed that trial court had inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice to prevent judgment debtor’s agent from dissipating funds.)
  • Alan v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 217 (2003) (Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate vacating the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine the proper location for the arbitration.)
  • Citigroup, Inc. v. Pacific Investment Management Co. (In re Enron Corp.), 296 B.R. 505 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (In a case involving various financial institutions’ distribution of notes offered by Enron and Enron-sponsored entities, the Central District of California affirmed an order of the bankruptcy court remanding case to state court.)