Source: https://www.weintraub.com/practice-areas/appellate
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:11:56+00:00

Document:
Weintraub Tobin attorneys offer expert representation in all aspects of civil appeals, including state, federal, and arbitration cases. We take pride in our ability to provide the highest quality appellate options and solutions for our clients. Our attorneys have specialized expertise in all forms of pre-trial and post-trial extraordinary writs, interlocutory appeals, post-trial motions, and appeals.
In Re Morning Star Packing Co., LP v. United States District Court (9th Cir. 2013) 711 F. 3d 1142 compels federal trial courts to award restitution to victims of fraud or deceit even if assessing such restitution would be a complex and time consuming exercise. Weintraub represented Morning Star Packing Co., LP (successful on petition for extraordinary writ).
In Re Mark B v. Leslie B (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 61. Can a juvenile court issue sanctions pursuant to section 128.7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure? The answer is now “yes”, as determined in this case. Weintraub represented respondent/real party-in-interest Dale Wilson (successful on appeal).
Cummings v. Future Nissan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 321 establishes that arbitration agreements providing for a second level review of an arbitration award by a second private arbitrator are enforceable in California, and that objections to arbitration must be raised at the outset or they are waived. Weintraub represented respondent Future Nissan (successful on appeal).
Estate of Goyett v. Harkey (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 67 stands for the rule that a testator’s use of the term “my money” was properly interpreted to include essentially all of the testator’s financial assets including bank accounts, certificates of deposit, money market accounts, treasury bills, and savings bonds. Weintraub represented respondent Vivian York (successful on appeal).
Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32 establishes, that among other things: (1) the “good cause” standard applied to implied contracts not to terminate employment except for good cause did not apply to contracts for a specified term under California Labor Code section 2924; and (2) Business and Professions Code section 2056, which protects physicians who advocate for medically-appropriate healthcare from retaliation, applies in contexts other than disputes with a healthcare payor. Weintraub represented appellant Dr. Khajavi (partial success on appeal).
Channel Lumber Co. v. Porter Simon (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1222 provides that a corporation’s attorneys are not “agents” as defined by Corporations Code section 317 and, thus, are not entitled to reimbursement of fees in defending against a malpractice action from its former client. Weintraub represented appellant Channel Lumber (successful on appeal).
Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999). Does the presence of an unsightly structure, in this case a microwave tower, support a claim by a neighbor that the tower constitutes a private nuisance? The California Court of Appeal said “no”. Weintraub represented respondent AT&T Wireless (successful on appeal).

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