Committed To The Entire Legal Process

Most large law firms have an appellate department, and many small law firms refer their appellate work to other attorneys because they do not feel qualified to handle appeals. Klein & Wilson handles its own appeals. Appellate specialists say trial lawyers should not file their own appeals because they cannot be objective about what happened at trial. Klein & Wilson disagrees.

Appellate Practice In California

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 finished. Only those who participated in the fight can truly understand how the battle was fought and why a case was won or lost at the trial court level.

No attorney will better understand the issues involved in an appeal better than the attorney who handled the case from the beginning. Klein & Wilson believes that a client deserves the assistance of the most qualified legal representative available.

Achieving Successful Outcomes In Appeals

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 rarer is reversal of a verdict following trial. Yet, in two different cases, Klein & Wilson successfully reversed trial court decisions entered against its 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 through trial, through appeal and through the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment.

Contact The Appellate Attorneys of Klein & Wilson

To speak with a lawyer at Klein & Wilson about an appeal call 949-478-0521, or contact the firm by email.

Significant Appellate Decisions

Gutierrez v. Gutierrez - Klein & Wilson Wins a Bet the Company Case, Keeping Its Client in Business
2004 WL 1894772

Klein & Wilson represented defendant in a "bet the company" action filed by defendant's brother. Brother sought to permanently shut down Klein & Wilson's client and was represented by Downey Brand, Sacramento's largest law firm. Defendant and brother had a successful ice cream manufacturing business. To meet customers' demands, they decided to purchase a building 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. Brother paid defendant $1 million for the business. After defendant started a new business which threatened brother's success, brother sued defendant for damages and an injunction, alleging that defendant 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 grounds 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 brother significant damages, and the trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant 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 defendant and vacate the injunction. This was a complete victory for Klein & Wilson's client.

Affinitec Corporation v. Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc. - Klein & Wilson Protects a $5 Million Trial Verdict
2002 WL 453626 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Following Klein & Wilson's successful $5 million trial verdict against the German conglomerate, 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.

Business Center Drive Partners, L.P. v. BioGentec Corporation, et al. - Klein & Wilson Blocks Defendant's Attempt to Compel Arbitration
2005 WL 1684072 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Despite litigating with Klein & Wilson's client, BioGentec contended it was entitled to arbitration under the terms of the lease. The trial court denied BioGentec's motion to compel arbitration. BioGentec filed a writ petition. Klein & Wilson convinced the appellate court that BioGentec's request for arbitration was untimely, and the appellate court denied writ petition.

Bovee v. Kodnegah - Klein & Wilson Protects a Favorable Anti-SLAPP Ruling
2009 WL 4023742 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Klein & Wilson represented a landlord in an action against a tenant who failed to maintain the landlord's property, resulting in thousands of dollars of repair costs. In response to the complaint, the tenant filed a cross-complaint alleging the landlord caused the tenant to suffer millions of dollars when the landlord evicted him. Klein & Wilson filed an anti-SLAPP motion, alleging the cross-complaint was barred because it related to litigation. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the cross-complaint. The tenant appealed, and Klein & Wilson defeated the appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order.