Appellate

Southern California Appellate Attorneys

The firm's appellate attorneys continue the Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP commitment to full service. We prosecute and defend appeals and extraordinary writs in both federal and California courts of appeal, including the Supreme Courts of California and the United States.

Our appeals involve a wide range of subjects, including inverse condemnation, government immunities, insurance litigation, patent and trademark infringement, and constitutional issues. We also handle writs of administrative mandamus for clients who have been unsuccessful in administrative proceedings before government agencies.

Appellate Lawyers With Extensive Trial Experience

WCC&E prides itself on its staff of appellate attorneys who all have extensive civil litigation experience in the trial courts. Unlike "boutique" appellate law firms who are often staffed primarily by appellate attorneys who have never actually tried a lawsuit, our appellate attorneys are actual trial lawyers, with experience in court that gives us a distinct advantage over the competition.

For that reason, we not only handle appeals for existing clients, but we often receive referrals from other law firms to conduct appeals for their clients. WCC&E attorneys can take any case, no matter what stage of the appeal process it is in.

The appellate attorneys utilize all of the most current and respected research tools and techniques. In addition to the firm's extensive in-house legal library, the appellate lawyers use online research tools throughout the entire appeal process.

With superior research and writing capabilities, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP has also scored major victories in law and motion in the trial courts because of the close working relationship between the appellate attorneys and the rest of the firm.

Here is a list of some published appellate decisions in which our clients were victorious:

Tortorella v. Castro, 140 Cal.App.4th 1 (2006) (reversing judgment against plaintiff in a medical malpractice case, finding that unnecessary surgery is inherently injurious).

In re Homestore.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 347 F. Supp. 2d 814 (D. Cal. 2004) (denying defendants' motion to continue trial in class action lawsuit).

Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen, 25 Cal.4th 489 (2001) (allowing insurer to recover settlement payments when the underlying claims are not covered under the policy).

Lang v. Hochman, 77 Cal.App.4th 1225 (2000) (affirming $22 million default judgment in business litigation following discovery abuses).

Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450 (D. Cal. 1996) (dismissing causes of action against clothing manufacturer for alleged violations of the Industrial Homeworker Act and Garment Manufacturing Act).

Re-Open Rambla, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 39 Cal.App.4th 1499 (1995) (affirming judgment finding that county roads within a city's boundaries are automatically transferred to that city upon its incorporation, and that the county has no duty to repair those roads once transferred).

Weatherby v. Van Diest , 233 Cal.App.3d 506 (1991) (upholding dismissal of lawsuit).

J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M. K. , 52 Cal.3d 1009 (1991) (rejecting insurance coverage for sexual molestation).

Tokeshi v. State of California, 217 Cal.App.3d 999 (1990) (upholding finding of state immunity regarding pesticide notifications).

Tessier v. City of Newport Beach, 219 Cal.App.3d 310 (1990) (affirming summary judgment for city, finding that the natural condition immunity applies when alterations to beach mimic nature).

Morin v. County of Los Angeles, 215 Cal.App.3d 184 (1989) (affirming judgment for county in running and diving case, based upon the natural condition and hazardous activity immunities granted public entities).

Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., 47 Cal.3d 550 (1988) (holding that a public entity is only liable for flood damage in an inverse condemnation action if its conduct was unreasonable).

Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. et al., 481 U.S. 787; 107 S. Ct. 2124; 95 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1987) (finding client was denied due process in patent case).

Geffen v. County of Los Angeles, 197 Cal.App.3d 188 (1987) (affirming nonsuit for county in running and diving case, based upon the natural condition immunity granted public entities).

In addition, WCC&E recently prevailed in the following unpublished appellate decisions:

American Home of Sciences, Inc. v. California School of Modern Sciences, Inc. , 2 Civil BC283610 (Cal. App. 2006) (reversing $1.3 million adverse judgment, WCC&E Partner Melissa Harnett retained to pursue appeal).

Vincent v. Belt , 4 Civil E038884 (Cal. App. 2006) (affirming arbitration award in personal injury action).

Salas v. Viking Ins. Co. , 2 Civil B168903 (Cal. App. 2005) (affirming order sustaining demurrer to complaint).

Drum v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. , 2 Civil B169512, 2 Civil B172504 (Cal. App. 2005) (affirming dismissal of attorney's complaint for fees).

Bernstein v. DaCorsi , 2 Civil B164190 (Cal. App. 2004) (affirming order denying anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case).

Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Zilka , 56 Fed. Appx. 828 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal for failure to respond to discovery).

China M&E Co. v. Hai Juan Qu , 2 Civil B159548 (Cal. App. 2003) (affirming judgment dismissing cross-complaint).

GMAC Commer. Fin. LLC v. Superior Court (Mountain High Hosiery, Ltd.) , 2 Civil B166070 (Cal. App. 2003) (affirming order denying petition to stay or dismiss complaint and transfer case to New York).

Ete Mensucat Sanayi Ve Ticaret v. Pacific Printex Corporation , 2 Civil B147906 (Cal. App. 2002) (affirming judgment for client in business litigation).

Midland Risk Insurance Company v. Drum , 2 Civil B144734 (Cal. App. 2002) (affirming judgment for defendant in lawsuit by former attorney for fees).

Shumaker v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth. , 2 Civil B145770 (Cal. App. 2002) (affirming dismissal for failure to respond to discovery).

Vallier v. Jet Propulsion Lab., 23 Fed. Appx. 803 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming order finding corporation was an independent contractor, and thus subject to liability in toxic tort case).

Walker v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer , 2 Civil B146901 (Cal. App. 2001) (reversing dismissal of complaint for breach of contract and wrongful termination).

In over 30 years of practice, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP has become a leading law firm in California, Class Actions, and the Pacific Rim. Contact us to see how we can assist you with your appellate needs.