Another California Supreme Court Victory for The Ehrlich Law Firm

California Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Plaintiff in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Ins. Co

On June 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court decided Nickerson v. Stonebridge Ins. Co., which I argued in April. The Court unanimously held that so-called “Brandt fees” in insurance bad-faith cases could be included in the calculation of punitive damages.

Thanks to my co-counsel, Bill Shernoff, his team, and my son Clint Ehrlich, who helped me on the briefing.  It’s an honor to be making new bad-faith law with Bill Shernoff.

Nickerson vs Stonebride Life Insurance

 

Save

Save

Save

Ehrlich Law Firm obtains depublication of flawed appellate opinion on “duty”

Los Angeles Civil Appeals Attorney

Ehrlich Law Firm obtains depublication of flawed appellate opinion on “duty”

California Supreme Court SealOn February 22, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied review in Gonzales v. Southern California Gas Co., but it also ordered that the decision not be published in the Official Appellate Reports of the state.  Hence, the decision in Gonzales will not be citeable as authority in California courts.  The appellate opinion in Gonzales held that the property owners were categorically exempt from liability for the placement of fixed objects on their property, even if the object was a natural-gas distribution facility that would cause a conflagration if struck by a car.

Jeffrey I. Ehrlich filed a letter requesting depublication of the Gonzales decision on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California.  It was the only depublication letter filed.


Our Legal Services

Southern California appeals attorney, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, is an appellate specialist certified by the State Bar of California’s Committee on Legal Specialization. He is the principal of the Ehrlich Law Firm, in Encino, Los Angeles County, California.

California Supreme Court grants petition for review filed by Ehrlich Law Firm

California Writs and Appeals Lawyer

California Supreme Court grants petition for review filed by Ehrlich Law Firm

California Supreme Court, San Francisco, Earl Warren BuildingOn May 11, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hodge v. Aon Insurance Services, No. S191415.  The plaintiffs in Hodge are insurance adjusters employed by Cambridge Integrated Services, a third-party claims adjusting firm.

Plaintiffs claim that they were entitled to overtime compensation; Cambridge claims they were performing “administrative” work and were therefore exempt.  The trial court ruled against plaintiffs, and the Second Appellate District, Div. 8, affirmed in a published opinion, Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1361.  That opinion has been de-published as a result of the Supreme Court’s order. The Court has deferred briefing on the case until it resolves another pending matter that deals with overtime compensation for insurance adjusters, Harris v. Superior Court.


Why hire The Ehrlich Law Firm for your appeal?

Mr. Ehrlich has briefed and argued hundreds of appeals, in the following courts: The U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits; the California Supreme Court; the Virginia Supreme Court; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Louisiana Court of Appeals, and the California Court of Appeal. In California, Mr. Ehrlich has handled appeals in the appellate courts sitting in San Francisco (First District), Los Angeles (Second District), Sacramento (Third District) San Diego (Fourth District, Div. 1), Riverside (Fourth District, Div. 2), Santa Ana (Fourth District, Div. 3), Ventura (Second District, Div. 6),,, and Fresno (Fifth District) – in sum, every appellate court in the State except for the Sixth District, which sits in San Jose.

Both the California and the federal appellate system dispose of the vast bulk of their civil appeals in unpublished decisions. Fewer than 25% of all appeals decided are decided by published decisions that have precedential value. Mr. Ehrlich has over 55 published appellate decisions in the state and federal courts. Very few appellate lawyers in California have comparable experience with civil appeals.

Contact our appellate law firm today to learn more about our legal writing services for attorneys.

Reply to Defense Counsels’ Assessment of California Supreme Court Decision in Cabral v. Ralphs

California Writs and Appeals Lawyer

Reply to Defense Counsels’ Assessment of California Supreme Court Decision in Cabral v. Ralphs

Ralphs LogoMay 2011 – Counsel for Ralphs’ does not acknowledge that their position was that truck drivers and their employers should be immune from civil liability for the driver’s decision to illegally park a 40-ton obstacle on the freeway shoulder so he could eat a banana and have a cup of tea.  Under Ralphs’ theory, truck drivers could park their trucks alongside California freeways anywhere they pleased, for any reason, and as long as they were not blocking a traffic lane there would be no recourse if a passing motorist momentarily swerved onto the shoulder and struck the illegally-parked truck.

In the Daily Journal article Ralphs’ lawyer is quoted as saying that, “after this decision there is no safe place to park in California.”  At oral argument the Justices asked this same attorney whether it would be ok for a truck driver to park 3 inches from the travel lanes, and she said that would be fine. If Ralphs’ position had been adopted there would have been no safe place to drive in California, and the Supreme Court recognized this.

It is important to understand that the Cabral decision does not impose a new duty of care on truck drivers, or on anyone else.  Rather, it holds that the duty to exercise ordinary care not to create unnecessary risks that is already imposed on everyone in California by Civil Code section 1714, applies to a decision to park a truck alongside a freeway.  Ralphs was arguing that the decision to park next to a freeway should be exempt from any duty of care.

When Ralphs’ lawyer says that now, it’s not “safe” to park in California because if your vehicle is stuck a jury will decide whether you had a good enough reason to park, the answer is, that’s generally how the negligence system works.  Negligence cases balance the utility of the conduct with the risks it creates.  If there had been a valid emergency no one questions that the Ralphs’ truck could have pulled off the freeway.  But as the Supreme Court acknowledged, whenever 40-ton big-rigs are parked alongside freeways they pose a risk to passing motorists.  If there is a collision between a motorist and a parked truck, it makes sense that the jury would consider whether the truck was parked where it was for a valid reason, and not simply because the driver did not feel like paying to park in a rest area a mile away.

Time Line for Cabral Appeal

 

Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark negligence ruling in California Supreme Court

California Writs and Appeals Lawyer

Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark negligence ruling in California Supreme Court

California Supreme Court SealIn a unanimous decision the California Supreme Court reversed a JNOV ordered by the Court of Appeal in Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. The decision reinstates a wrongful death judgment on behalf of the family of Adelmo Cabral, who was killed when his car veered off the freeway and collided with the back of a Ralph’s tractor-trailer rig that had been parked 16 feet from the freeway while its driver had a snack.

The jury held that Ralphs’ was 10% at fault for the crash, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the crash was “unforseeable” and that truck drivers therefore owed no duty to passing freeway motorists in the manner in which they parked their trucks as long as they were out of the travel lanes. The Supreme Court rejected all of the appellate court’s reasoning. The decision is important because it expressly curtails the practice used by trial and appellate courts with increasing frequency to decide negligence cases as a matter of law by finding that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care on the particular facts of the case.

The Court held that the decision that no duty of care is owed — which is more accurately framed as a finding that an exception should be made to the general duty of care imposed on all persons by California law — “is to be made on a more general basis suitable to the formulation of a legal rule.” As a result, the Cabral decision will mean that more negligence cases in California will be decided by juries, based on the specific facts of the case, and not by courts based on a finding that no duty exists.

Read The Decision (.pdf)

Jeffrey Ehrlich argues negligence case in California Supreme Court

California Writs and Appeals Lawyer

Jeffrey Ehrlich argues negligence case in California Supreme Court

California Supreme Court SealOn February 8, 2011, Jeffrey Ehrlich argued Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. in the California Supreme Court.  The case presents the issue of whether truck drivers owe a duty of care to passing motorists when they park alongside California freeways.

For more information, read, High Court Signals It May Rule Against Ralphs In Truck Crash. Daily Journal. Wednesday, February 9, 2011. (.pdf)

Case Update:  February 28, 2011. Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark negligence ruling in California Supreme Court: Unanimous Decision in Cabral v. Ralphs


Certified Appellate Specialist

Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich is certified as appellate specialist by the State Bar of California’s Committee on Legal Specialization.  In California, only lawyers who receive this certification can call themselves “appellate specialists.” In order to be eligible for certification, a lawyer must have handled a minimum number of appellate matters, must devote at least half his or her practice to appellate work, and must pass a one-day examination. Mr. Ehrlich was among the first attorneys in California certified as an appellate specialist. As of January 2015, there were only 282 certified appellate specialists in California, out of more than 170,000 California lawyers.  Learn More

 

LA Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. Depublication Request Granted

LA Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. Depublication Request Granted

LA Checker Cab LogoOn August 11, 2010, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, principal of The Ehrlich Law Firm filed a depublication request  (L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.) on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys Association of California.  (Two other depublication requests were also filed.)   On October 27, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the request for depublication of the L.A. Checker Cab decision.

Depublication of Court of Appeal decisions by the Supreme Court of California used to be a common practice, but in recent years has become quite uncommon.  In the last few years roughly 12 cases per year have been ordered depublished.

The significance of the depublication of LA Checker Cab is this:  the decision effectively eliminated all insurance coverage in California for any claims of negligent supervision or negligent hiring, because the court held that such claims did not qualify as an “occurrence” that is necessary to trigger coverage.   Depublication of the decision means that the decision cannot be cited as precedent in California courts, and therefore California trial courts are not required to follow it.

Read Depublication Request: L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.; 186 Cal. App. 4th 767, No. B213948 (Second District iv. One); Order published: July 13, 2010


Why you need an attorney with writ petition experience

The lawyer who petitions for a writ must therefore be able to show the Court that the issue presented is (a) interesting, and (b) important. For this reason, the odds of being able to successfully obtain writ review often depend on the skill of the lawyer presenting the writ petition. At the Ehrlich Law Firm, we have experience with drafting persuasive writ petitions, and have enjoyed success in obtaining writ review for our clients at far higher than the overall success rate for writ petitions.

For example, in Elvira v. Superior Court (2007) B200184, we successfully obtained a writ challenging the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint.  In DeBruyn v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1213, we convinced the Appellate Court to consider the issue of whether an insurance policy that purported to bar all mold-related claims, regardless of how caused, was consistent with California law.  And in Medeiros v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1008, we obtained a writ for a client who had been enrolled in her employer’s health plan electronically, without being given the disclosure concerning the plan’s use of arbitration that were required on the application by state law.  In its published opinion, the court held that insurers could not circumvent this law by doing away with the application.

Contact our appellate law firm today to learn more about our legal writing services for attorneys.

Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark insurance decision in California Supreme Court

California Writs and Appeals Attorney

Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark insurance decision in California Supreme Court

California Supreme Court SealA unanimous California Supreme Court held that a “severability of insurance” clause made a homeowner’s liability policy ambiguous where the insurer sought to rely on an exclusion that withdrew coverage for all insureds under the policy based on the intentional acts of one insured. Plaintiff Scott Minkler holds a $5 million judgment against David Schwartz, who molested him, and against David’s mother, Betty, for negligently failing to stop the wrongful conduct. Betty’s insurer rejected coverage, arguing that the intentional-acts exclusion in the policy, which withdrew coverage for any claim arising from the intentional acts of “an” insured, applied to the claims against Betty because David’s conduct was intentional.

The Supreme Court adopted the approach advanced by the Ehrlich Law Firm, finding that the policy’s severability provision, which states that “this insurance applies separately to each insured” would lead a reasonable insured to conclude that he or she would be treated as the only insured under the policy. Because most liability policies have severability clauses, the Minkler case may substantially broaden coverage in California for failure-to-supervise claims. Minkler v. Safeco (2010) __ Cal.4th __.)


A lawyer’s lawyer

Our principal attorney is Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, a certified appellate specialist by the State Bar of California’s Committee on Legal Specialization. Few attorneys can match Mr. Ehrlich’s appellate experience.  His skill is in analyzing complex legal and factual issues, and presenting them to the court in a clear, persuasive manner. We can help plaintiff’s attorneys with any appellate matter in either the state or the federal appellate courts.

We can defend favorable verdicts and attack unfavorable ones. We can draft writ petitions to seek appellate review of a devastating – but unappealable – trial court ruling, or respond to petitions filed by an opponent. We are experienced in seeking reversals in cases where the defendant has prevailed on summary judgment.

Benefits of hiring The Ehrlich Law Firm to handle your appeal

When large corporate defendants win or lose a jury verdict, or any type of major case at the trial level, they often bring in appellate specialists to handle the post-trial briefing. Why?

Sophisticated clients understand that the skills that win trials are not necessarily the skills that win appeals, and that appellate specialists are often best prepared to defend or attack a verdict on appeal.

Our Legal Services

Ehrlich Firm Prevails in California Supreme Court case

California Writs and Appeals

Ehrlich Law Firm prevails in California Supreme Court on case involving important issues of California civil-writ practice and procedure.

California Supreme Court SealIn a closely-watched case involving civil-writ procedure in California, the  California Supreme Court adopted the position advocated by the Ehrlich Law Firm, and held that appellate courts can properly issue so-called “speaking” or “suggestive” Palma notices when they are inclined to issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. A Palma notice informs the parties that an appellate court is inclined to grant a peremptory writ in the first instance. A speaking Palma notice goes further, and explains why the Court is taking the position it takes, and often directs the trial court to change its order. The Supreme Court held that a speaking Palma notice is proper, but that trial courts should hold a hearing before changing an order in response to such a notice. (Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri v. Superior Court (Great American Ins. Co.)(2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233.)


Benefits of hiring The Ehrlich Law Firm to handle your appeal

When large corporate defendants win or lose a jury verdict, or any type of major case at the trial level, they often bring in appellate specialists to handle the post-trial briefing. Why?

Sophisticated clients understand that the skills that win trials are not necessarily the skills that win appeals, and that appellate specialists are often best prepared to defend or attack a verdict on appeal.

Effective lawyering requires a wealth of skills, and most lawyers gravitate to what they enjoy and what they are good at. While most lawyers are called on to write in the course of their practice, few devote themselves to becoming accomplished legal writers.

Only those with a keen interest in writing are likely to take seminars on writing, read books on effective written advocacy, seek out expert editors and subject their writing to blunt criticism, and then practice the lessons learned on countless motions, oppositions, and briefs.

A look at our bookshelf reveals where our interests lie. It is filled with books on writing, usage dictionaries, and written advocacy. We care about writing well, and have devoted considerable effort to develop and maintain our writing skills. [Sample briefs]

As a result of this hard work, and more than 20 years of practice, we are recognized as being among the best plaintiffs’ appellate firms in California. This is why the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles – the third largest trial lawyer association in the nation – recognized Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich its 2004 appellate lawyer of the year.

This is also why Michael Bidart of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria LLP, one of the most successful plaintiff’s attorneys in the nation (and our former law partner) uses us as his appellate counsel.


Our Legal Services

Southern California appeals attorney, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, is an appellate specialist certified by the State Bar of California’s Committee on Legal Specialization. He is the principal of the Ehrlich Law Firm, in Encino, Los Angeles County, California.

 

California Supreme Court grants petition for review filed by Ehrlich Law Firm

California Writs and Appeals Lawyer

California Supreme Court grants petition for review filed by Ehrlich Law Firm

California Supreme Court SealJanuary 2010 – Adelamo Cabral was killed when he lost control of his pickup truck on I-10 and slammed into a big-rig truck illegally parked on the shoulder.  At trial, the jury held that the truck’s driver and owner were 10% at fault for the collision.  The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial court should have granted a JNOV against the Cabral family’s wrongful-death action because there was no duty by the truck driver to create a “safe landing” for Cabral.

The Ehrlich Law Firm filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal’s approach would make California freeways more dangerous by allowing truck drivers to park their rigs alongside the freeway with impunity.  The Court granted the petition, and the matter is being briefed.  (Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. No. S. 178799.)


Why hire The Ehrlich Law Firm for your appeal?

Mr. Ehrlich has briefed and argued hundreds of appeals, in the following courts: The U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits; the California Supreme Court; the Virginia Supreme Court; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Louisiana Court of Appeals, and the California Court of Appeal. In California, Mr. Ehrlich has handled appeals in the appellate courts sitting in San Francisco (First District), Los Angeles (Second District), Sacramento (Third District) San Diego (Fourth District, Div. 1), Riverside (Fourth District, Div. 2), Santa Ana (Fourth District, Div. 3), Ventura (Second District, Div. 6),,, and Fresno (Fifth District) – in sum, every appellate court in the State except for the Sixth District, which sits in San Jose.

Both the California and the federal appellate system dispose of the vast bulk of their civil appeals in unpublished decisions. Fewer than 25% of all appeals decided are decided by published decisions that have precedential value. Mr. Ehrlich has over 55 published appellate decisions in the state and federal courts. Very few appellate lawyers in California have comparable experience with civil appeals.

Contact our appellate law firm today to learn more about our legal writing services for attorneys.

Ehrlich Law Firm obtains important victory in asbestos lawsuit

California Writs and Appeals Attorney

Ehrlich Law Firm obtains important victory in asbestos lawsuit; California Supreme Court then grants review

Asbestos warningWaters, Kraus & Paul, with one of the premier asbestos-litigation practices in the U.S., hired the Ehrlich Law Firm to argue an important products-liability case, O’Neil v. Crane Co. in the Court of Appeal, Second District, Div. 5.

The issue in O’Neil was whether sailors injured by asbestos released during the maintenance of valves and pumps that were manufactured to contain asbestos within them, and that were insulated with asbestos, could be held liable on theories of strict products liability and negligence, even if the asbestos material in the equipment had been replaced with other asbestos material during the product’s life.

In Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, the Court of Appeal , First District, held that the manufacturers could not be held liable because the asbestos was not “their” product.

Ehrlich convinced the court not to follow Taylor, and in a written decision the court held that Taylor had been wrongly decided.  (O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2010) 177 Cal.App.4th 1019.)  The Supreme Court later granted review to resolve the conflict between the positions advocated in O’Neil and Taylor.  Ehrlich is expected to argue the matter in the California Supreme Court.


Benefits of hiring The Ehrlich Law Firm to handle your appeal

When large corporate defendants win or lose a jury verdict, or any type of major case at the trial level, they often bring in appellate specialists to handle the post-trial briefing. Why?

Sophisticated clients understand that the skills that win trials are not necessarily the skills that win appeals, and that appellate specialists are often best prepared to defend or attack a verdict on appeal.

Effective lawyering requires a wealth of skills, and most lawyers gravitate to what they enjoy and what they are good at. While most lawyers are called on to write in the course of their practice, few devote themselves to becoming accomplished legal writers.

Only those with a keen interest in writing are likely to take seminars on writing, read books on effective written advocacy, seek out expert editors and subject their writing to blunt criticism, and then practice the lessons learned on countless motions, oppositions, and briefs.

A look at our bookshelf reveals where our interests lie. It is filled with books on writing, usage dictionaries, and written advocacy. We care about writing well, and have devoted considerable effort to develop and maintain our writing skills. [Sample briefs]

As a result of this hard work, and more than 20 years of practice, we are recognized as being among the best plaintiffs’ appellate firms in California. This is why the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles – the third largest trial lawyer association in the nation – recognized Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich its 2004 appellate lawyer of the year.

This is also why Michael Bidart of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria LLP, one of the most successful plaintiff’s attorneys in the nation (and our former law partner) uses us as his appellate counsel.

Our Legal Services


Southern California appeals attorney, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, is an appellate specialist certified by the State Bar of California’s Committee on Legal Specialization. He is the principal of the Ehrlich Law Firm, in Encino, Los Angeles County, California.

Ehrlich Law Firm convinces Ninth Circuit to submit certified question to California Supreme Court

California Writs and Appeals

Ehrlich Law Firm convinces Ninth Circuit to submit certified question to California Supreme Court

US Court of Appeals 9th CircuitScott Minkler appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his claim against Safeco Insurance Company under a homeowner’s liability policy.  Minkler’s claims arose out of Safeco’s refusal to defend Betty Schwartz, whose son David molested Minkler.  Safeco denied coverage because of an exclusion in its policy for claims arising from the acts of “an” insured, because David was a resident of Betty’s home, and hence an insured under her policy.

The issue in the case is the proper construction of a provision in the Safeco policy stating that “This insurance applies separately to each insured.” The Ninth Circuit, at the Ehrlich Firm’s request, has asked the California Supreme Court to decide the meaning of that provision. Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2009).


Why hire The Ehrlich Law Firm for your appeal?

Mr. Ehrlich has briefed and argued hundreds of appeals, in the following courts: The U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits; the California Supreme Court; the Virginia Supreme Court; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Louisiana Court of Appeals, and the California Court of Appeal. In California, Mr. Ehrlich has handled appeals in the appellate courts sitting in San Francisco (First District), Los Angeles (Second District), Sacramento (Third District) San Diego (Fourth District, Div. 1), Riverside (Fourth District, Div. 2), Santa Ana (Fourth District, Div. 3), Ventura (Second District, Div. 6),,, and Fresno (Fifth District) – in sum, every appellate court in the State except for the Sixth District, which sits in San Jose.

Both the California and the federal appellate system dispose of the vast bulk of their civil appeals in unpublished decisions. Fewer than 25% of all appeals decided are decided by published decisions that have precedential value. Mr. Ehrlich has over 55 published appellate decisions in the state and federal courts. Very few appellate lawyers in California have comparable experience with civil appeals.

Contact our appellate law firm today to learn more about our legal writing services for attorneys.

Our Legal Services

Ehrlich Law Firm wins insurance bad-faith victory in California Supreme Court

California Writs and Appeals Attorney

Ehrlich Law Firm wins insurance bad-faith victory in California Supreme Court

California Supreme Court SealInsurance companies in California can no longer prevail in bad-faith lawsuits brought by their policyholders simply by showing that there was a “dispute” about whether the insurer should pay the claim. In Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, the Supreme Court reined in the so-called “genuine dispute rule” that had become the insurance industries’ most potent defense in bad-faith cases, holding that the rule only applied at the summary-judgment stage, and then only in cases where a jury would be unable to make a finding that the insurer had acted unreasonably.

The Wilson ruling makes it much harder for insurers to obtain summary judgment in bad-faith lawsuit.


Why hire The Ehrlich Law Firm?

Mr. Ehrlich has briefed and argued hundreds of appeals, in the following courts: The U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits; the California Supreme Court; the Virginia Supreme Court; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Louisiana Court of Appeals, and the California Court of Appeal. In California, Mr. Ehrlich has handled appeals in the appellate courts sitting in San Francisco (First District), Los Angeles (Second District), Sacramento (Third District) San Diego (Fourth District, Div. 1), Riverside (Fourth District, Div. 2), Santa Ana (Fourth District, Div. 3), Ventura (Second District, Div. 6),,, and Fresno (Fifth District) – in sum, every appellate court in the State except for the Sixth District, which sits in San Jose.

Both the California and the federal appellate system dispose of the vast bulk of their civil appeals in unpublished decisions. Fewer than 25% of all appeals decided are decided by published decisions that have precedential value. Mr. Ehrlich has over 55 published appellate decisions in the state and federal courts. Very few appellate lawyers in California have comparable experience with civil appeals.

Our Legal Services