Source: http://ringbenderlaw.com/practices/appellate/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:25:35+00:00

Document:
Ring Bender’s appellate practice includes over 100 collective years of experience as appellate litigators in state and federal court, as well as with administrative cases which make their way to various appeals forums. Our appellate lawyers have experience representing clients in almost all of the federal circuit courts of appeals and before the appellate courts of many states. We also represent clients before state and federal administrative agencies, and in the courts reviewing the actions of those agencies.
We understand that success on appeal begins at the outset of a dispute, not at the filing of the appeal. The strategies and skills necessary to prevail at the appellate level can be different from but are complementary to the approach that is strongest at the trial court level. During the trial court proceedings, our focus is to develop a factual record that persuades the judge or jury of the merits of our client’s case. On appeal, our focus is on the legal arguments that arise out of that factual record. As a result, we work hard to ensure that the trial record preserves and supports any potential arguments on appeal so that we can prevail for our clients in both forums.
Our appellate experience includes representing clients in a wide variety of matters, including class actions, commercial litigation, environmental (both civil and criminal), land use, and water rights, and intellectual property litigation. We bring the same level of intensity we demonstrate in trial to our appellate practice and the advice we provide to our clients concerning their appeals.
Martini v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.,130 S. Ct. 554 (2009) – denying certiorari after Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld district court’s dismissal of lawsuit.
Balderas v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., No. 10-55064, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 6824977 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2011) – commending counsel’s persuasiveness that resulted in the dismissal of the case by the district court.
Associated Receivables Funding, Inc. v. Richard Guido (Cal. Ct. of App. 2011) – affirming trial court order reinstating $2.4 million judgment in favor of our client.
Querard v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Cal. Ct. of App. 2011) – affirming dismissal of fraud-based claims.
Bartusch v. Oregon Dept. of Higher Education, et al., 126 P.3d 840 (Wash. App. Div. II, 2006) – dismissing cause of action for veterinary malpractice based on state sovereign immunity.
Lumbreras v. Roberts, 319 F.Supp.2d 1191 (D. Or. 2004), affirmed, 156 Fed. App. 952 (9th Cir. 2005) – dismissing Sec. 1983 civil rights claim based on alleged discrimination in termination of business license.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) – holding that ESA case was moot and vacating district court orders delineating scope of federal agency discretion.
American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009) – vacating EPA’s national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter.
New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) – vacating EPA’s clean air mercury rule.
Phelps Dodge Tyrone, Inc. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, 143 P.3d 502 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) – affirming in part and remanding state agency’s discharge closeout permit for mining facility.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (D.N.M. 2005) – addressing mootness of ESA case challenging biological opinion for river and reservoir operations.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 355 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2004) – dismissing interlocutory appeal of preliminary injunction in ESA case.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003) – affirming district court order delineating scope of federal agency discretion under ESA to modify river and reservoir operations.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 46 Fed. Appx. 929, 33 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,060 (10th Cir. 2002) – denying interlocutory appeal of district court decision upholding adequacy of biological opinion under ESA.
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Norton, 294 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2002) – in case of first impression, affirming district court order holding that NEPA required preparation of environmental impact statement for critical habitat designation under ESA.
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Babbitt, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D.N.M. 2000) – holding that NEPA required preparation of environmental impact statement for critical habitat designation under ESA.
In re Commission Investigation into 1997 Earnings of U S WEST Communications, Inc., 980 P.2d 37 (N.M. 1999) – upholding public regulation commission’s decision in telecommunications utility rate case.
In re Public Service Co., 196 P.U.R.4th 1 (N.M.P.R.C. 1999) – public regulation commission’s final order in electric utility rate case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.