Successful Cases & Decisions

West American Insurance Company v. Valles (Nov. 20, 2020, No. B296771)
Jeff Lewis Law represented an employee injured while driving in an appeal against his employer’s uninsured motorist carrier. The trial court had entered declaratory judgment against the injured worker holding that no recovery could be asserted against the uninsured motorist carrier because the employee had not obtained benefits through worker’s compensation. Attorney Sean Rotstan was the lead attorney for this appeal and obtained a reversal on appeal. 

Chi v. Superior Court (Jun. 19, 2020, No. B306262)

Jeff Lewis Law represented a criminal defendant in a writ proceeding who sought to exercise a peremptory challenge for an appeal. The defendant sought to challenge the judge assigned to sentence him on the grounds that the trial judge had received an improper ex parte communication. The trial judge elected to review and dispose of the peremptory challenge himself rather than deferring to another department. On June 19, 2020, Division Five of the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause which prompted the trial court to vacate its prior order on the peremptory challenge. 

D.D. v. R.C. (April 26, 2019, No. B284239)

Jeff Lewis Law represented a party who had appealed an illegal civil harassment restraining order (CCP 527.6) wrongfully entered in favor of a neighbor. After having a restraining order served on her, this neighbor retaliated by petitioning for a TRO vs. our client after she and her husband submitted false statements under the penalty of perjury.   Jeff Lewis argued that not one of the half-dozen prerequisites for such a restraining order to be granted had been satisfied, and that the trial court judge’s opinion violated our client’s First Amendment right. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed in its ruling that the neighbor’s evidence of claimed harassment did not meet CCP 527.6’s definition on at least one of these elements, there was no threat of violence but instead the neighbor had made such false claim, and Jeff Lewis’ client had not received due process. The restraining order was dissolved. In related criminal proceedings relating to fabricated allegations that our client had violated the illegal restraining order, the District Attorney dismissed all charges following the reversal by the Court of Appeal.

Heredia v. Heredia (June 4, 2020, No. B296823)

Jeff Lewis Law represented on appeal a party in a dissolution matter. The family law court had awarded substantial attorney’s fees. Jeff Lewis Law handled the briefing and argument on appeal. That award was upheld on appeal.

In re Marriage of Fudge (Mar. 5, 2020, No. G055872)

Jeff Lewis Law represented on appeal a party going through a divorce. As a result of a private judging decision, she obtained a five figure marital support award and a favorable division of property. Jeff Lewis Law handled the briefing and argument on appeal and obtained a complete affirmance of the award.

Roxana V. v. Randy S. (Aug. 6, 2019, No. B293013)

Jeff Lewis Law represented on appeal a party whose ex spouse had sought a domestic violence restraining order. The trial court denied the order. Jeff Lewis Law handled the briefing and argument on appeal. That result was upheld on appeal.

Harper v. Canyon Hills Community Association (August 19, 2014, California Court of Appeal Case No. G048445). 

In this case, Mr. Lewis represented a homeowner on appeal who had claims against her homeowners association for approving a neighbor’s construction project in violation of the CC&R’s.  The trial court entered summary judgment against the homeowner.  Mr. Lewis obtained a reversal on appeal allowing the claim to proceed to trial. 

Lucky 777, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court, JPMCC 2006-LDPY Trinity Place LLC, (October 23, 2014, California Court of Appeal Case No. E061679). 

Court of appeal granted petition for writ of mandate reversing trial court’s denial of motion to expunge lis pendens.

Rothman v. Masson (March 5, 2012 G044872).

Jeff Lewis represented client on appeal from an order granting anti-SLAPP motion. Client prevailed on appeal.

Duncan v. Superior Court (June 30, 2010, Supreme Court Case No. S182188). 

Mr. Lewis represented on appeal a person who had property seized by the LAPD.  The property was never used in a criminal trial nor was it subject to forfeiture proceedings.  Mr. Lewis represented Mr. Duncan in the California Supreme Court and obtained an order from that court directing the LAPD to return the confiscated property.

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 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.  The Court of Appeal reversed under the stringent “substantial evidence” standard.

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 argued 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.

Pyrovest Corporation v. Anaheim Plaza, LLC (Feb. 19, 2003 California Court of Appeal, Case Nos. G029127, G030561). 

In this real estate litigation matter, defendants successfully moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate damages.  On appeal, the summary judgment was upheld despite the fact-intensive nature of this affirmative defense.

Nazerian Construction Company v. Superior Court (Oct. 10, 1998 California Court of Appeal, Case No. B123315). 

Mr. Lewis filed a petition for writ of mandate directing the superior court to reverse its order sustaining a demurrer.