Filing Appeals, Writs and Post-Judgment Motions
Appellate law practice requires more than a rehashing of arguments made at trial. At Kashfian & Kashfian, LLP, we understand the characteristics that make a successful appellate attorney. We are dedicated to passionately presenting your case before any appellate court in the state of California, District of Columbia or in the federal system. Our services include traditional appeals, writs and post-judgment motions for modification or enforcement of a court order.
If the court granted an inadequate award, improperly dismissed a case or issued a harsh and unwarranted penalty, an appeal may be what is needed. Conversely, if you want the appellate court to uphold a decision, verdict or judgment that was in your favor, you need an attorney to vigorously stand your ground.
A writ is a directive from an appellate court to a trial court, an administrative agency or a person ordering them to do or stop doing something. It is up to the appellate court’s discretion whether to hear a writ petition. An attorney representing a petitioner will need to show that the petitioner has no other available remedy and will suffer irreparable harm otherwise. Our lawyers are skilled at determining when a writ is appropriate. When it is the right course of action, we are equipped to give your case the greatest chances of success through these legal maneuvers.
Sometimes a post-judgment motion is appropriate rather than an appeal. A motion or “request for order” that has been fined in a civil litigation case may be used to pursue a modification or assistance with the enforcement of a court order. Ask our team about filing a “request for order” – another term for post-judgment motion – as you seek relief after an initial judgment has been ordered.
An Example of Success in Our California Practice
While our firm is located in Los Angeles, we appeal cases across the state of California and beyond. Civil appeals or writs, criminal appeals or writs, family law appeals, immigration appeals, bankruptcy appeals – no matter the area of law, we are uniquely positioned to help you come to a favorable outcome. One of our successes among many others was the following:
Art Works Studio & Classroom, LLC v. Leonian, No. B304461, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1618 (Mar. 14, 2022): Our attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal of an appeal for mootness, on the basis that the appellant failed to protect the appeal and the appeal was moot, because of the doctrine of issue preclusion (formerly known as collateral estoppel).
Anabi Oil Corp. v. IFuel, Inc., No. B301899, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4407 (July 6, 2021): Our attorneys successfully defended an anti-SLAPP order dismissing an oil distributor’s complaint, in part, on the basis that the complaint arose from protected activity (entering into a settlement agreement) and the oil distributor could not prevail on his claim that the right of first refusal was breached.
Munoz v. Welch, No. B301717, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8662 (Dec. 29, 2020): Our attorneys were able to secure the secure the reversal of the Superior Court’s order dismissing a complaint, with prejudice, as being barred by the statute of limitations.
Chavez v. Lifetech Res., No. B282417, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1008 (Feb. 11, 2019): Our attorneys were able to secure, on behalf of a plaintiff-employee, the reversal of a jury verdict in favor of a defendant-employer, on the basis that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence and that several of the jury’s findings on the special verdict form were fatally inconsistent.
United States v. Doe, 810 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2016): Our attorneys were able to obtain a reversal of the District Court’s order that had broadly ordered the former attorneys to produce everything identified in the government’s subpoenas, on the basis that the District Court improperly ordered production of the documents without first examining the documents in camera to determine whether the documents contained communications in furtherance of the alleged criminal fraud.
Jin v. Holder, 585 F. App’x 625 (9th Cir. 2014): Our attorneys were able to obtain a reversal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of an asylum petitioner’s request for withholding of removal, on the basis that evidence did not support the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding.
Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling USA, Inc., 512 F. App’x 685 (9th Cir. 2013): Our attorneys were able to obtain a reversal of the district court’s order dismissing Solid 21, Inc.’s complaint for trademark infringement, on the basis that the district court erred in permitting the defendants to introduce evidence to rebut the complaint.
We Are Ready to Seek Post-Judgment Relief for You
No case is too large or too small for our appellate lawyers. We have handled cases involving more than $100 million as well as cases involving less than $10,000. Call our office at 310-751-7578 to discuss your case, or reach out online to get started.