Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd has an experienced Appellate Practice Group that assists the trial litigators when it becomes necessary to seek appellate review or defend favorable judgments and orders. The appellate lawyers also aid with strategy and briefing at the trial level.
No other plaintiff-side firm features a comparable group of attorneys concentrating on appellate work, and who have appeared in so many jurisdictions. Reflecting the national practice at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, its appellate lawyers have briefed or argued cases in the United States Supreme Court, all circuits of the United States Court of Appeals and numerous state high courts (including California, Delaware, Washington, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, Illinois, South Dakota, Florida, Texas, Alabama and Hawaii). The Appellate Practice Group is especially active in the Ninth Circuit and the California appellate courts. Two partners are certified appellate specialists (State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization) and members of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.
Case by case, the Appellate Practice Group shapes the law to benefit investors and consumers nationwide.
Leading Example Cases Where Our Appellate Attorneys Were Instrumental
- Litigating important issues at the United States Supreme Court. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1309 (2011) (unanimous decision); Powerex v. Reliant Energy Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (2007); Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005).
- Overturning dismissals of federal securities class actions. Siracusano v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 585 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2009), aff’d, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1309 (2011); Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009); Institutional Investors Grp. v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009); Frank v. Dana Corp., 547 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008); In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008); In re Daou Sys., 411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005); Barrie v. Intervoice-Brite, Inc., 397 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2005), reh’g denied and opinion modified, 409 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2005); Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp., 380 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2004); Pirraglia v. Novell, Inc., 339 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2003); No. 84 Employer-Teamster Joint Council Pension Trust Fund v. Am. West Holding Corp., 320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003).
- Reinstating complaints dismissed in state trial courts. Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc., 185 Cal. App. 4th 1068 (2010); Rael v. Page, 222 P.3d 678 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009); Koponen v. Pac. Gas & Elec., 165 Cal. App. 4th 345 (2008); Haw. Med. Ass’n v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass’n, 148 P.3d 1179 (Haw. 2006).
- Setting aside orders rejecting class certification and upholding orders granting it. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-11064, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6047 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2011); In re Constar Int’l Inc. Sec. Litig., 585 F.3d 774 (3d Cir. 2009); Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corp., 572 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009); Ritt v. Billy Blanks Enters., 870 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007); In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2004); Lebrilla v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2004).
- Successfully defending the plaintiff’s choice of a state forum. Luther v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011); Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008); Ill. Mun. Ret. Fund v. Citigroup, Inc., 391 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2004).
- Obtaining favorable answers to questions certified from federal courts. Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 2010); In re F5 Networks, Inc., Derivative Litig., 207 P.3d 433 (Wash. 2009); In re Guidant S’holders Derivative Litig., 841 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2006).
- Defending challenges to class notice. Fidel v. Farley, 534 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008); DeJulius v. New Eng. Health Care Employees Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2005).
- Overturning orders erroneously requiring litigants to arbitrate their claims. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2007).
- Obtaining reversals at the summary judgment stage. Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 605 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 2010).
- Reversing orders erroneously dismissing timely actions as barred by the statute of limitations. City of Pontiac Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. MBIA, Inc., No. 09-4609-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813 (2d Cir. Feb. 28, 2011); Hatfield v. Halifax PLC, 564 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2009); Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Pharmacia Corp., 554 F.3d 342 (3d Cir. 2009); Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008); In re WorldCom Sec. Litig. (Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. (CalPERS) v. Caboto-Gruppo Intesa BCI), 496 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2007).
- Defeating writ petitions challenging discovery rulings. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Superior Court, 173 Cal. App. 4th 814 (2009); In re Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, 450 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006).
- Rebutting defense contentions that personal jurisdiction was lacking. West Corp. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167 (2004).
- Restoring a jury verdict wrongly nullified by the trial judge. Smith v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
- Establishing consumer rights under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011); Troyk v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1305 (2009); Benson v. Kwikset Corp., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2007); McKell v. Wash. Mut., Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (2006); Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003).
- Preserving a class action settlement over an objector’s appeal. Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545 (2009); Denver Area Meat Cutters & Employers Pension Plan v. Clayton, 209 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
- Bolstering the right to amend where initial complaints are challenged. Branick v. Downey Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 39 Cal. 4th 235 (2006).
- Filing amicus curiae briefs on issues of interest to the Firm’s clients. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 795 (2011) (for amici curiae Consumers Union of United States, National Consumer Law Center and Center for Constitutional Rights); Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010) (for amici curiae Change to Win and the Change to Win Investment Group); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (for amici curiae legal scholars); Teamsters Local 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Dynex Capital, Inc., 531 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (for amicus curiae Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the Longview Funds); County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 4th 35 (2010) (for clients in related case); Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758 (2010) (for amicus curiae Consumer Attorneys of California); Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979 (2004) (for amicus curiae National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys).
- July 26, 2012Public Information Office: United States Courts for the Ninth District
- May 25, 2012