Most large law firms have a separate appellate department and many small law firms must refer out their appellate work because they do not feel qualified to handle appeals. Klein & Wilson handles its own appeals. While appellate specialists often argue that trial lawyers who handle a case should not file their own appeals because they cannot be objective about what happened at trial. Klein & Wilson disagrees. An appellate practitioner who picks up the file only after the judgment has been entered is like someone who visits a battlefield after the battle is over. Only people who participated in the battle can understand how the battle was fought and why a case was won or lost.
Klein & Wilson’s appellate record speaks for itself. For example, although extraordinary writs are rarely granted in civil cases, and usually fewer than one in twenty writs are issued, Klein & Wilson has had great success in writ practice. Even more rare is a reversal of a verdict following trial. Yet, in two different cases, Klein & Wilson successfully reversed a trial court decision entered against Klein & Wilson's clients resulting in directed verdicts by the appellate court in favor of Klein & Wilson's clients.
Accordingly, Klein & Wilson is capable of handling a case from the filing of a complaint to the entry of a final, non-appealable order.
The following are some of Klein & Wilson’s appellate results.
Plaza Freeway Limited Partnership v. First Mountain Bank
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 616
In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a shopping center attempting to evict a bank tenant based upon expiration of the bank’s lease. Both sides agreed the lease had not yet expired, but the bank had executed an estoppel certificate indicating an erroneous lease expiration date. The question presented at trial was whether the bank was bound by its estoppel certificate or whether the actual lease expiration date should be enforced. In a case of first impression, the trial court concluded the bank was not bound by the estoppel certificate. Klein & Wilson appealed and the appellate court reversed, finding the estoppel certificate enforceable and directing the court to enter judgment in favor of Klein & Wilson’s client. The case was a published decision and was listed in the real estate section of the State Bar of California as one of the ten most important cases of 2000.
Ambassador Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Wei-Chuan Investments
189 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 1999)
Klein & Wilson was retained only after the client suffered a judgment approaching $70 million. Following reversal of the trial court’s ruling, Klein & Wilson was able to have the judgment reduced by tens of millions of dollars.
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
(2004 WL 1894772) Cal.App. 5 Dist.
Klein & Wilson represented defendant Ruben Gutierrez in an action by Ruben’s brother Ignacio. Ignacio was represented by Downey Brand, Sacramento’s largest law firm. Ruben and Ignacio had a successful ice cream manufacturing business. In order to meet customers’ demands, Ruben and Ignacio decided to purchase a building in which to conduct their manufacturing operation. The bank required a partnership agreement before it would lend money to purchase the building. Accordingly, the brothers signed a partnership agreement which contained a ten-year covenant not to compete which was triggered if one of the brothers voluntarily withdrew from the partnership. Approximately two weeks after the brothers signed the partnership agreement, they decided to terminate their partnership over differences which had been festering for years. The brothers then signed a dissolution agreement which did not contain a covenant not to compete but did contain an integration clause stating the dissolution agreement contained all the terms of the brothers’ final agreement. Ignacio paid Ruben $1 million for the business. After Ruben started a new business which threatened Ignacio’s success, Ignacio sued Ruben for damages and an injunction, alleging that Ruben withdrew from the partnership and was therefore bound by the covenant not to compete. Klein & Wilson filed several motions to end the lawsuit on the ground the dissolution agreement was integrated and the parol evidence rule barred a jury from considering the covenant not to compete in the partnership agreement. The trial court denied the motions and the case proceeded to trial. The jury awarded Ignacio significant damages, and the trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Ruben from manufacturing and selling ice cream in California. Klein & Wilson appealed the judgment, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal agreed with Klein & Wilson’s analysis of the parol evidence rule and ordered the trial court to enter judgment for Ruben and vacate the injunction.
CD Listening Bar, Inc. v. Doe Accounting Firm
Unpublished
Klein & Wilson’s client claimed it was owed substantial amounts of money from an accounting firm that had breached a contract to install computer software. The accounting firm convinced the trial court to compel arbitration in Fargo, North Dakota. Klein & Wilson sought a writ of mandate, even though fewer than five percent of writ petitions succeed. Despite the small odds, Klein & Wilson’s writ petition was successful and the matter was returned to the trial court.
Affinitec Corporation v. Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc.
Unpublished
Following Klein & Wilson’s successful $5 million trial verdict against the German conglomerate Siemens, Siemens hired appellate specialists to handle the appeal. Klein & Wilson represented the winning party at trial and also defended the judgment on appeal. The entire judgment was affirmed, with the exception of interest, which the trial court was required to recalculate. Siemens settled upon remand to the trial court.
