Broedlow Lewis devotes a significant portion of their practice to appellate matters representing both appellants and respondents in all areas of the law including civil, criminal, probate and family law matters. Broedlow Lewis’ attorneys primarily appear in the Second and Fourth Districts of the California Court of Appeal, covering Los Angeles and Orange County. However, Broedlow Lewis is also admitted to practice before the Sixth and Ninth Circuit as well as the United States Supreme Court.
- Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowner’s Association, 168 Cal.App.4th 1111 (2008) In this matter, a group of homeowners’ ocean views were blocked by their neighbors’ palm trees. The homeowners association (“HOA”) refused to enforce the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) that required that the trees be trimmed. The homeowners sued the HOA to comply with the CC&Rs and enforce the tree trimming. At trial, the homeowners were victorious and obtained an injunction ordering the HOA to trim the trees. The HOA appealed the judgment and the homeowners then retained Mr. Lewis to ensure that their hard fought trial victory would stand up on appeal. The HOA argued that 1) the HOA’s decisions were entitled to deference and insulated from any review by the courts; 2) the trial court’s order was vague; 3) the homeowners were required to sue every tree owner in addition to the HOA to obtain any relief. The Court of Appeal rejected each of the HOA’s arguments and the homeowners’ injunction against the HOA was affirmed.
- People v. Wycoff, 164 Cal.App.4th 410 (2008). In this matter, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court had not properly conducted an in camera hearing to examine the contents of the arresting officer’s personnel file and, therefore, the Court of Appeal could not conclude whether the criminal defendant had the right to receive and review the personnel file for evidence of complaints against the officer for perjury, planting evidence, etc. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the defendant’s conviction to allow for the hearing to be conducted properly and to ascertain whether the defendant’s right to such documents had been observed. Mr. Lewis represented the defendant by appointment by the Court of Appeal.
- O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (2006). In O’Grady v. Superior Court, Apple Computer, Inc. issued subpoenas to identify the source of a leak by one of its employees of a new product. The subpoenas were directed to a website blogger and the blogger’s email servcie provider. The blogger asked the trial court to quash the subpoenas. The trial court denied that request. The blogger appealed. Mr. Lewis filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of a group of bloggers to brief the court on the need to afford bloggers with the same reporter’s shield protection available to traditional journalists. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and directed that the subpoenas be quashed.
- Videotape Plus, Inc. v. Lyons, 89 Cal.App.4th 156 (2001). In this matter, Mr. Lewis represented a party that had previously been sued for negligence, fraud and conversion. In an ensuing malicious prosecution action, the trial court erroneously dismissed the malicious prosecution action. On appeal, Mr. Lewis successfully argued that the prior action lacked probable cause and the claim for malicious prosecution should be reinstated.
- Mesa Forest Products v. St. Paul, 73 Cal.App 4th 324 (1999).
SIGNIFICANT UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
- Mishler v. Kinder (Aug. 14, 2009 California Court of Appeal Case No. B200622). In Mishler v. Kinder, Mr. Lewis represented on appeal one of three daughters who were litigating over the disposition of their father’s estate. At the trial court level, the probate court disinherited the daughter and imposed an attorney’s fee award against her. On appeal, Mr. Lewis obtained a complete reversal, reinstated the daughter’s inheritance and overturned the adverse attorney’s fee award.
- Martin v. Avigdor (May 26, 2009 California Court of Appeal Case No. G040399). In Martin v. Avigdor, Mr. Lewis represented a husband and wife who were potential buyers of a home. When escrow did not close for the purchase of the home, the seller’s real estate agent sued the potential buyers for a “lost” commission on the sale. The potential buyers lost at trial and were ordered to pay the broker the “lost” commission plus attorney’s fees. After the trial, Mr. Lewis took over the case on appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a complete reversal of the judgment and relieved the potential buyers of any obligation to pay the broker for the commission.
- Christakes v. Ekstrom (Mar. 3, 2009 California Court of Appeal Case No. G039954). In Christakes v. Ekstrom, Mr. Lewis represented a group of homeowners who were sued for malicious prosecution. At the trial court level, Mr. Lewis successfully obtained a dismissal of the malicious prosecution action using California’s anti-SLAPP statute. However, the trial court granted Mr. Lewis’ clients only a fraction of their out of pocket legal fees. Because this order was contrary to the spirit of California’s anti-SLAPP law, Mr. Lewis argue to the Court of Appeal that the attorney’s fee award should be enlarged to include 100 percent of the out of pocket legal costs that his clients. The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Lewis, reversed the attorney’s fee award and ordered the trial court to award the full amount of Mr. Lewis’ client’s costs and attorney’s fees.
- Bresnahan v. Dunn (Oct. 31, 2006) B.A.P. 9th Cir. Case No. 05-1406
- Cook v. Coontz (Jan. 14 , 2005 California Court of Appeal, Case No. G030959)
- Pyrovest Corporation v. Anaheim Plaza, LLC (Feb. 19, 2003 California Court of Appeal, Case Nos. G029127, G030561).
- Nazerian Construction Company v. Superior Court (Oct. 10, 1998 California Court of Appeal, Case No. B123315).