Hahn Loeser attorneys have substantial experience briefing and arguing appeals in complex commercial cases in federal and state courts around the country. Our appellate practice encompasses cases that we litigate at the trial level as well as cases in which we had no involvement at the trial level.
Our appellate practice attorneys have backgrounds as federal appellate and district court clerks and appellate experience in the U.S. Department of Justice. One of our attorneys has been certified as an Appellate Specialist by the Ohio State Bar Association. Another has extensive experience before the Florida Supreme Court and four of the Florida district courts of appeal.
Hahn Loeser attorneys have substantial experience briefing and arguing appeals in complex commercial cases in federal and state courts around the country. Our appellate practice encompasses cases that we litigate at the trial level as well as cases in which we had no involvement at the trial level.
Our appellate practice attorneys have backgrounds as federal appellate and district court clerks and appellate experience in the U.S. Department of Justice. One of our attorneys has been certified as an Appellate Specialist by the Ohio State Bar Association. Another has extensive experience before the Florida Supreme Court and four of the Florida district courts of appeal.
We litigate appeals in a wide variety of subject areas. In recent years, we have developed particular expertise in patent appeals, appeals of class action certification orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f),and appeals under the Class Action Fairness Act.
The following cases, decided in the past five years, illustrate the range of our client representation in complex appeals:
- Murray v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., 594 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2010): Successfully defended dismissal of a purported multi-state consumer class action against our client.
- Fitness Quest, Inc. v. Monti, 330 Fed. Appx. 904 (Fed. Cir. 2009): Obtained reversal of key aspects of a summary judgment ruling against our client, an inventor, in a suit for infringement of a patent for exercise equipment.
- Hartis v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5372 (8th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009) and district court decision on remand: Successfully removed a purported nationwide consumer class action against our client to federal court under CAFA.
- Hazewood v. Found. Fin. Group, LLP, 551 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2008): Successfully defended the dismissal of a putative nationwide class action against Ticor Title Insurance Company. Plaintiffs alleged that Ticor overcharged them for title insurance. Decision was a precedent-setting interpretation of a federal statute that affected many similar lawsuits around the country.
- Sec. Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope, 200 P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008): Persuaded the court to reinstate a multi million dollar punitive damages verdict for our client in this employee-raiding case. The final judgment of $15 million was among the largest civil verdicts ever upheld in Arizona.
- In re: Methyl Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 1358 (S.D.N.Y): Represented ExxonMobil Corporation in multi-district litigation, including seeking mandamus relief and a collateral order appeal from the district courts plan to conduct bellwether trials.
- Tharo Sys., Inc. v. cab Produkttechnik GmbH & Co. KG, 196 Fed. Appx. 366 (6th Cir. 2006): Successfully defended a 1.7 million judgment in favor of an Ohio software development company against a German company that breached the parties partnership agreement.
- Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985 (6th Cir. 2007): Defended a $43.8 million verdict for Chicago Title Insurance Company in this employee-raiding case; the Sixth Circuit left intact many key aspects of liability against the defendants, while remanding for a new trial.
- Frischs Rests., Inc. v. Fortney & Weygandt, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 23445, 2008 Ohio 1385: Represented a local construction firm in an appeal of an adverse arbitration award.
- Sentry Protection Products, Inc. v. Eagle Manufacturing Co., 400 F.3d 910 (Fed. Cir. 2005): Successfully defended claim constructions and judgments of patent invalidity obtained for Eagle Manufacturing Company in the district court.
Additional details concerning these cases and other appellate cases are available upon request.
