Source: https://www.bowmanandbrooke.com/practice-areas/appellate-and-advanced-motions
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:55:23+00:00

Document:
At Bowman and Brooke, we know that cases do not begin on the first day of trial and they do not end when the jury returns a verdict. The Appellate and Advanced Motions Team at Bowman and Brooke can help you at every crucial stage of your litigation.
Before trial, we can assist you and your trial team with motions related to venue, jurisdiction and choice of law; dispositive motions; Daubert challenges; motions in limine; as well as the overall legal strategy for your case. During trial, we assist with all legal arguments directed to the evidence, as well as directed verdict motions and jury instructions so that trial counsel is best positioned to prevail with the jury. All the while, we provide a watchful eye to preserve and position issues for appeal. At all times, our intent is to support, and not second-guess, trial counsel’s strategy. After trial, we know how to combine the research, writing, and oral advocacy skills that determine the outcome of post-verdict motions and appeals.
We pride ourselves on knowing the law and procedure and combining it with the art of persuasive advocacy on your behalf. In this regard, we are well-practiced at condensing a multi-month trial into a concise brief that captures the essence of our position and then being able to describe that perspective to the appellate court in the short time permitted for oral argument.
We can do this because we have handled appeals in civil, administrative and criminal matters on behalf of insureds, businesses and manufacturers in high-risk and bet-the-company situations throughout the country. We have decades of experience and knowledge in handling legal issues relating to product liability, property damage, catastrophic personal injury, premises liability, medical malpractice, employment, worker’s compensation and other tort-related, criminal and statutory claims. We have spent countless hours in the trenches during complex trials to advance legal arguments and have experience working seamlessly with in-house counsel and trial teams from other firms.
In addition, we take the time to develop strategies that will advance the law in a manner that will promote your interests and long-term goals. In this regard, we are often retained to file amicus briefs. We have worked with clients on legislation important to your interests and have participated on state jury instruction committees. In short, we focus on the law from many different perspectives and are ready to put that experience to good use.
Bowman and Brooke’s Appellate and Advanced Motion attorneys are ready when you need them and they have the know-how to protect you when it matters the most—when your favorable verdict is at risk of being overturned.
With bilingual attorneys and our strategically-located Florida offices that serve as a gateway to Latin America, Bowman and Brooke is able to defend manufacturers in suits by international plaintiffs as a result of accidents occurring in U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico, as well as abroad. We have provided trial support and appellate services in cases arising from accidents or suits in Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Venezuela and Mexico. We have also provided trial support in foreign incident cases addressing choice of law issues and drafting motions and instructions under the law of a foreign country.
When it comes to your appellate matters and advanced motions support, insist on a firm that has a deep understanding of the procedural rules and requirements, the strategies, and the techniques to help you avoid traps. Insist on a firm whose experience in state and federal appellate courts is vast. Insist on a firm whose lawyers have their finger on the pulse of changing law and who frequently argue, write and speak on related topics, including appellate court jurisdiction, jury instructions, compensatory and punitive damages and preserving error.
Insist on Bowman and Brooke.
In McKenna v. Breg, Inc., No. G048732, 2015 WL 917827 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), a California appellate court upheld a jury verdict for device maker Breg, Inc. in February of 2013, after a three and a half week trial in the Superior Court for the State of California for the first bellwether case in the California infusion pump JCCP to go to trial, a jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Breg, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Breg was negligent and strictly liable for providing inadequate warnings with its Pain Care 3000 infusion pump.
On October 10, 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a defense verdict in favor of Jaguar following a jury trial involving alleged electrical issues with a 2007 Jaguar XK. In the original trial, Brownfield v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, the jury unanimously ruled that Jaguar was not in violation of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
In Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 46 So. 3d 1020, 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010), the court reversed a $53 million verdict against Teledyne and ordered a new trial again on the improper admission of evidence concerning other accidents. Bowman and Brooke attorneys were also successful on this issue in Hall-Edwards v. Ford, 971 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), Bowman and Brooke attorneys obtained a reversal of a $60 million verdict because the court erred as a matter of law in admitting evidence of other accidents without requiring the plaintiff to meet their burden of proving substantial similarity.
Last Thursday, in the case of Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in a published opinion the rulings of Judge K. Michael Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida excluding the general and specific causation testimony of plaintiff expert Gary Poehling, M.D., and granting summary judgment for pain pump manufacturer Breg, Inc.
In Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School, Inc. v. Maynoldi, 30 So. 3d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010), the family of a teenager severely injured in an auto accident sued his school and the Archdiocese of Miami alleging they were responsible for a party that occurred after school hours and off-campus. After an 8-week trial, the jury awarded $58 million, resulting in a $12 million judgment after application of comparative fault. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed for entry of judgment in the school’s favor, finding the school had no duty to supervise non-school related activities.
Bowman and Brooke has been named to the BTI Client Service A-Team 2019. This is the fourth time since 2014 that the firm has made the list. This data-driven ranking recognizes law firms named by clients as consistently delivering superior client service.
Bowman and Brooke Among 2019 "Best Law Firms"
Bowman and Brooke has been recognized by Chambers USA for the seventh consecutive year in the Nationwide Product Liability & Mass Tort category, Band 2.

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