California Supreme Court & Court of Appeal

Horvitz & Levy appears more often in the California appellate courts than any other firm. In the California Supreme Court, we have appeared as counsel of record or as counsel for amicus curiae in over 170 cases over the last 30 years. We have appeared even more frequently in recent years, with over 70 appearances in the last decade. In the California Court of Appeal, we have appeared as counsel of record in more than 1,200 cases since 1990.

As a result of our extensive experience, we have an unparalleled knowledge of the justices, procedures, and culture of the California appellate courts. We have literally written the book(s) on California appellate practice. Jon B. Eisenberg and Ellis J. Horvitz are co-authors of the leading treatise on civil appeals and writs in California, the Rutter Group's California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs. Curt Cutting and Bradley S. Pauley are co-authors of the California chapter of the Appellate Practice Compendium, published by the American Bar Association.

Our experience has translated into results. For example, since 1990 we have prevailed in 62% of cases in which we have represented appellants, compared to an average success rate of 20-25% for California civil appeals. 

We have been ranked as the #1 appellate practice in California by The Best Lawyers In America, and listed in the highest tier of California appellate firms by Chambers & Partners U.S.A., which has lauded the "strong performance and fresh perspective" of our attorneys and our "insight into the workings of the Supreme Court of California."

Drawing on our extensive experience in the California Supreme Court, we provide news and commentary on the practice of law before that court through our blog, At the Lectern.

Representative Wins

Representative Briefs

  • Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2012)
    California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California unconscionability standard that invalidates arbitration procedures to the extent they unduly favor one party over the other, and that in any event such arbitration procedures are not unconscionable under state law because they do not shock the conscience.
  • Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2012)
    California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California public policy and unconscionability standards that invalidate arbitration agreements where the arbitration procedures fail to satisfy certain minimal procedural requirements or unduly favor one party over the other.
  • Ballester v. Superior Court (2011)
    Petition for review asking the California Supreme Court to overrule Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 to the extent it permits discovery of private non-party information that is not directly relevant to pending litigation.
  • Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2010)
    California Supreme Court amici curiae brief arguing that the common-law collateral source rule does not allow a plaintiff to recover as medical expense damages the “usual and customary” charges billed by the plaintiff’s healthcare providers when the providers agreed to accept as full payment for their services lesser amounts from the plaintiff’s health insurance carrier.
  • O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2010)
    California Supreme Court brief arguing that a defendant cannot be liable for injuries caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute.
  • Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2009)
    California Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of public interest organizations in dispute over availability of attorney fees in low-damage discrimination cases.
  • Burlage v. Superior Court (2009)
    Answer to petition for review in the California Supreme Court, arguing against review of a published Court of Appeal decision that affirmed an order vacating an arbitration award.
  • Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers) (2008)
    California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that insurers provide neither “goods” nor “services,” and thus are not subject to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
More than 50 years of specializing in civil appeals