Hart v. Hart (B291315) (2021)

California Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District, Division Four

Bruce represented the respondent in a complex family dispute involving real estate, business ownership, and the enforceability of a privately conducted arbitration. The appellants filed a poor opening brief that failed to include proper record citations but then hired a qualified appellate lawyer to file the reply brief. The respondent then hired Bruce to represent him. Bruce filed a supplemental brief and argued at oral argument that the Court of Appeal should disregard the new arguments presented in the reply brief and limit the appellants to their opening brief. The Court of Appeal agreed and held that the appellants had forfeited their claims by failing to provide appropriate record citations, failing to raise arguments in the trial court, and failing to raise them properly in their opening brief. The court went on to find that even if they had been raised, they would be rejected.

Case Note

This case reinforces the critical importance of following proper briefing rules. The details of the case are here.

Leticia V. v. Jonathan A. (B233650) (2013)

California Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District, Division Seven

Bruce represented the respondent on appeal in a family law matter involving a stipulation that the parties were never legally married. After the trial court denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the stipulation and her subsequent motion for reconsideration, she appealed. Bruce successfully argued that the appeal was jurisdictionally barred because it was taken from a nonappealable order denying reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that such orders are not appealable even when based on new law or facts.

Case Note

This case reinforces the importance of analyzing whether the appellant is appealing from an appealable judgment or order. Although Bruce is confident that he would have won this appeal on the merits, he actually won here because the appellant did not appeal from an appealable judgment or order.

Herbert v. Davies (B236933) (2012)

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 4

Bruce represented the respondent on appeal in a complex partnership dispute involving arbitration. After the arbitrator awarded over $1.6 million to Bruce’s client and rejected the cross-claims, the appellants attempted to appeal the judgment but abandoned their first appeal. They later filed a motion for new trial and lost. They then filed a second appeal purported from the judgment and the order denying their new trial motion. Bruce successfully argued that the second appeal from the judgment was barred because their dismissal of their first appeal resulted in a final affirmed judgment. Bruce also successfully that the trial court properly denied the new trial motion. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the judgment and affirmed the denial of the new trial motion.

G.H. Development Corp. et al. v. Ozell (B210539) (2010)

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 4

Bruce represented the respondent, a attorney sued for breach of fiduciary duty, who prevailed on demurrer. (This details of this case are discussed here.) But on appeal, the appellants’ opening brief raised numerous claims not within the scope of the appeal or of any an appealable judgment or order. Rather than arguing against these claims in the respondent’s brief, Bruce first filed a motion to strike portions of the opening brief. The Court of Appeal granted this motion, leaving fewer claims to address in the respondent’s brief. This simplified the appeal and reduced the cost to the client.

Prometheus Development Co. v. Everest Properties (No. 06-16426) (2008)

U.S. Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit

Bruce represented the successful appellees, defending against a federal class-action suit that sought to enjoin ongoing state court litigation involving particular named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the state action was barred by res judicata under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. Bruce prevailed on appeal by showing there was no privity between he parties, and thus the federal Anti-Injunction Act precluded the federal district court from staying the state court action.