Horvitz & Levy LLP

I attended a great FedSoc presentation by Chad Pekron (Senior Vice President & Chief Counsel, Litigation, at Walmart), Zac Byer (Director of Litigation, Activision Blizzard), and moderated by my Horvitz & Levy LLP partner Jeremy Rosen. I highly encourage everyone to support and attend these informative FedSoc events.

Horvitz & Levy is proud to announce that the following attorneys have been listed in the Southern California Super Lawyers 2025: David Axelrad Peder Batalden Dean Bochner Eric Boorstin Karen Bray Frederic Cohen Curt Cutting David Ettinger Steven Fleischman Daniel Gonzalez Mark Kressel Jason Litt Shane McKenzie Stephen Norris Brad Pauley Lisa Perrochet John Querio Felix Shafir John Sprangers John Taylor Mitchell Tilner Tom Watson Robert Wright Additionally, we are pleased to highlight that Lisa Perrochet is recognized in the Top 50 Women Southern California Super Lawyers for 2025! To read the publication in full, please click here: https://lnkd.in/g47yuzdD #appellatelaw #superlawyers #Top50Women

??? A Big Congratulations! ??? We’re excited to celebrate Stephen Norris, Esq., Mark Kressel, Esq., and John Sprangers, Esq. for being named 2025 Finalists for the Defense Win of the Year Award for their outstanding work in Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp. ?? This incredible team has exemplified excellence and commitment to defense law, earning this well-deserved recognition. Kudos on this amazing achievement! ?? #ASCDC #DefenseWinOfTheYear #DefenseLawExcellence #Congratulations

???????????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ??. ???????????????????? ???????????????? ????????. ???? ????. (October 25, 2024, Modified and Certified for Publication 11/21/2024, E081220) [2024 WL 4576385] Plaintiff sued a shopping center and cleaning company for negligence?after she slipped and fell in?the shopping center. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the spill and could not have remedied the condition in time to prevent the fall. Defendants submitted evidence of their rigorous maintenance and inspection training regimen,?regular assessments of employee performance, and an automated employee tracking system that demonstrated a janitor’s inspection of the floor eight to nine minutes before the incident. ? Plaintiff argued that defendants evidence was insufficient,?The trial court granted summary judgment, and plaintiff appealed. ? The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that a premises owner?may prove it exercised reasonable care with a declaration from a knowledgeable person explaining the store’s regular maintenance practices and a record of actual inspections conducted within the time frame of plaintiff’s fall. The Court agreed that undisputed evidence demonstrated that defendants actively inspected the floor, and that the eight to nine minute interval between the last inspection and plaintiff’s fall was insufficient to prove constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. To view the opinion, please click here: https://lnkd.in/gi5bnYDZ To view other updates, visit: https://lnkd.in/gzGQP8K9 #appellatelaw

???????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????-?????????????? ??????’?? ????????????????????-????-?????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????????????????? ??. ?????? (2024) Plaintiffs purchased a used truck with over 55,000 miles on it. Plaintiffs had electrical problems with the truck and sued the manufacturer, claiming they were entitled to a repurchase of the vehicle under the “lemon law” provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lemon law’s repurchase-or-replace remedy is limited to “new motor vehicles,” which does not include plaintiffs’ used truck. The trial judge agreed.?Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that “new motor vehicles” are defined to include previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.???? ? The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the definition of “new motor vehicle” does not cover used vehicles.?The Supreme Court explained that the language of the Song-Beverly Act as a whole and the legislative history all confirm that?a previously-sold used vehicle does not fall within the definition of “new motor vehicle.”?? Horvitz & Levy LLP represented the defendant on appeal. To view the opinion, please click here: https://lnkd.in/gFiANMtC To view other updates, visit: https://lnkd.in/gzGQP8K9 #appellatelaw

Horvitz & Levy invites first-year law students to apply for our 1L Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Scholar Program for Summer 2025. Summer Scholars will receive an introduction to the practice of civil appellate law. They will assist our attorneys in ongoing cases by conducting legal research and preparing legal memoranda and will have the unique opportunity to participate in oral argument preparation and attend oral argument. Finally, Summer Scholars may assist in preparing articles for publication or developing materials for lecture and seminar presentations; review and analyze legislative history; or participate in pro bono projects. Candidates must be enrolled as a first year law student at an ABA accredited law school. If interested, please send your resume, transcript of first semester grades, a writing sample of 5-10 pages, and a cover letter briefly explaining (1) how your participation in the program will contribute to diversity in the legal profession and (2) your interest in and any prior experience with appellate litigation.?Submit applications to Sophie Yoon ([email protected]) before December 31, 2024. For more information, please follow the link below: https://lnkd.in/gsMpMyY6

?????????? ???? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??. ???????????? ???????? (2024) Plaintiff, an auto shop operator in the 1980s, developed mesothelioma later in life and sued numerous defendants for allegedly causing his exposure to asbestos. The last defendant remaining at trial was a brake lining manufacturer.?Because plaintiff was the owner/operator of a licensed auto repair shop subject to occupational safety regulations, defendant asserted a sophisticated user defense, alleging that as a trained auto technician subject to government workplace safety regulations, plaintiff should have known to take precautions when working with asbestos-containing products. The trial court, siding with plaintiff on a motion for directed verdict, refused to instruct the jury on the sophisticated user defense. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed, holding there were triable issues of fact on whether plaintiff was a sophisticated user. Horvitz & Levy LLP represented the defendant on appeal.? To view the opinion, please click here: https://lnkd.in/geJxeCvX To view other updates, visit: https://lnkd.in/gzGQP8K9 #appellatelaw

I spoke yesterday to the The Federalist Society chapter at the University of Houston Law Center. I discussed my 10 lessons for young lawyers. I thought I would share a shorter version here and spare you the longer speech. (1) Seek out mentors for career and life advice. I received extremely impactful advice from the Ninth Circuit judge I clerked for who told me to become an appellate lawyer and even suggested Horvitz & Levy LLP as a great place to work. (2) Look for opportunities to become an invaluable expert on an area of law. When I joined my firm 23 years ago, the anti-SLAPP statute was fairly new and I happened to be assigned to a defamation case called Varian v. Delfino. The case eventually morphed into an incredibly significant jurisdictional ruling by the Supreme Court on the effect of a notice of appeal of an anti-SLAPP motion creating an automatic stay. A mentor at the firm suggested I parlay that into becoming an expert in the statute itself. Many dozens of anti-SLAPP appeals later, that was really good advice. (3) It isn't all about work. Make time for family and creating memories with them. On Monday, I'll be in New York with my adult son rooting for the Dodgers at Yankee Stadium. When he was in High School, we went to a number of World Series and other games at Dodger Stadium. (4) It's ok to make mistakes, but learn from them and don't make the same mistakes. And if your boss yells at you for making mistakes, find a new boss. (5) In this remote world, acknowledge emails from your supervisors or clients with the "I've got it" response. Don't make people guess that you are working on their project. (6) Briefs and emails should read like the New York Times and normal English. No jargon or excessive acronyms or excessive definitions of things that are obvious. Don't overload briefs with unnecessary dates or facts that don't add to your story. And most stories are best told in a chronology. (7) Find something you love to do. Law is hard work. If you don't like what you do, you will be miserable and won't do it well. (8) Make time for pro bono. We are all privileged and should give back to those in need. And by pro bono I don't mean amicus briefs in high profile Supreme Court cases where the parties already have elite counsel. Those cases are fine without amicus support. Real pro bono is representing a poor person on the merits who otherwise would not have a lawyer even if the case isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. It's important to that person and we need more people taking on those cases. (9) Be a good colleague. Help your colleagues who are sick, or who have a sick kid, or who are having a rough time at home. Be there for them and they will help you out when you need help. (10) Play litigation to win (ethically and within the rules) but be civil and kind to opposing counsel. Professional courtesy is important.

Horvitz & Levy proudly sponsors the AABA - Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area's Supreme Court Term in Review panel, taking place at UC Law SF, Deb Colloquium & Skydeck, 333 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, San Francisco, on Wednesday, October 23, 2024, from 3:00 - 4:00 PM. Panelists Justice Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court, Shilpi Agarwal of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Professor Easha Anand of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic will discuss the leading cases the U.S. Supreme Court decided in its most recent term. The discussion will be moderated by former Horvitz & Levy attorney Chris Hu, Deputy Solicitor General of the California Department of Justice. To register, please click here: https://lnkd.in/geZszCXt

????????????????-????-???????????????? ?????? ??????-?????????? ???????????????????? ???? ?????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????????????????? ???? ?????? ?????????????? ???????? ??. ?????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????? (2024) Plaintiff helped form a business structured as a limited liability company. The company distributed profits to its members, including plaintiff. Over time, plaintiff became inactive but continued to receive substantial profits. Tensions flared when plaintiff declined buyout offers from other members. Plaintiff later directed his attorney to send a threatening letter to various stakeholders, alleging illegal activities within the company and potential exposure to criminal liability. The company warned plaintiff he would be ejected without compensation if he did not cure his statements within 30 days. When plaintiff refused, the company ousted him, valuing his shares at zero. Plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. The Court of Appeal held the business judgment rule insulated the company. The court found the conflict-of-interest exception to the business judgment rule inapplicable because the uncontested evidence showed the company’s decisionmakers had worked in the company’s best interests to oust plaintiff. The court also concluded it was not “corporate bad faith” for the company’s decisionmakers to take action against their colleague’s attacks.?There is “no precedent for extending the concept of bad faith to a situation where a company decisionmaker, while working in the company’s best interests, privately disparaged a colleague.” To view the opinion, please click here: https://lnkd.in/gEthVJQQ To view other updates, visit: https://lnkd.in/gzGQP8K9 #appellatelaw