Case Results

Case Results: Published/ Unpublished Opinions, and Select Trial Court Decisions

Published Cases

Unpublished Cases

Trial Court Decisions

  • Order Vacating 10-Year-Old Default Judgment in San Diego

  • Reinstatement of Revoked Nursing License in Los Angeles

  • Grant of New Trial in Los Angeles

  • Order Vacating $100k+ Default Judgment in Alameda County

  • Reinstatement of Revoked Contractor’s License in Los Angeles

  • Order Setting Aside Default Judgment in San Diego

  • Order Setting Aside $100k+ Attorneys’ Fees Award in Los Angeles

  • Order Setting Aside

Selected Victories

  • Decker Law was able help its clients obtain a reversal of two sanctions awards that were issued under Family Code section 271 by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles), in a published decision, emphasized that Family Code section 271 is not a tool for judges to punish parties or attorneys for disagreeing with them or for advocating zealously for their clients. (Featherstone v. Martinez (2022) 86 Cal. App. 5th 775.)

  • In another published decision, Decker Law was able to successfully defend a restraining order that the San Diego Superior Court issued to protect its client. Of particular note, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (San Diego) found that it does not violate the U.S. Constitution to place a firearm prohibition on parties restrained by a domestic violence restraining order. (Zachary H. v. Teri A. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1136.)

  • In a novel case involving the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (San Diego) sided with Decker Law and its clients, affirming a decision made by the juvenile division of the San Diego County Superior Court that denied an attempt to remove a young child from the only home she had ever known. (In re D.P. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1282 .)

  • Decker Law successfully obtained a reversal of an order confirming an arbitration award. The Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) found that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without first determining whether there was an arbitration agreement between the litigants. (Hudock Empl. Law Group v. Celebrity Homehealth (Oct. 18, 2022, No. B315387) [2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6304].)

  • Decker Law convinced the Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) to reverse an order from the Los Angeles County Superior Court granting summary judgment and dismissing claims brought by the firm’s client. The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in finding that the client’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. (Bowman v. Dr. Sebi's Office, Inc. (In re Estate of Bowman) (Dec. 16, 2022, No. B315723) [2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7652].)

  • The Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) issued a reversal in favor of Decker Law’s client, finding that the family division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court erred in its division of proceeds from the sale community property. The case was remanded back to the family court to recalculate the client’s share of the sale proceeds, which resulted in the trial court issuing an order requiricg that the client be reimbursed in a significant sum. (Ghazaryan v. Ghazaryan (In re Ghazaryan) (Apr. 18, 2023, No. B321151) [2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2188].)

  • A client came to Decker Law after coming to the harrowing realization that a six-figure judgment had been entered against him by the San Diego Superior Court a decade ago without his knowledge. After reviewing the record, the firm realized that the plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service (hence the client’s lack of knowledge of the case). The improper service was the basis of a motion to set aside the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The Superior Court granted the motion and declared the default judgment was void in its entirety.

  • Decker Law was able to revive a defamation action that had been dismissed by the Los Angeles Superior Court via the anti-SLAPP statute. The Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) was convinced by the firm’s argument that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the defendant had engaged in constitutionally protected activity. (Doe v. McClain (July 24, 2023, No. B320210) [2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4270].)

  • A well-established attorney had been sanctioned $12,000 under Family Code section 271 by a newly appointed Superior Court judge in Orange County. Decker Law quickly filed a brief in the trial court explaining why the sanctions award was legally erroneous and subject to reversal by the Court of Appeal. The brief was a success: the family court reversed its own decision to impose sanctions under Family Code section 271.

  • Decker Law represented a registered nurse whose license had been revoked by the Board of Registered Nursing. The firm was successful in convincing a Los Angeles Superior Court judge that revocation was legally erroneous. The trial court granted a writ of administrative mandamus and ordered the reinstatement of the client’s professional license.

  • Decker Law represented a businessowner who had prevailed at a bench trial before the Los Angeles Superior Court. The firm was successful in defeating every argument presented by the appellant, convincing the Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) to uphold the judgment. (Thompson v. Moon (Feb. 28, 2025, No. B322777) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1252].)

  • The First District Court of Appeal (San Francisco) granted Decker Law’s petition for writ of mandate, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a custody ruling in favor of person who was found to have committed an act of domestic violence. (A.K. v. Superior Court (Oct. 4, 2024, No. A170856) [2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6305].).)

  • Decker Law was retained by two individuals after a jury had rendered an unfavorable verdict against them. The firm filed a motion for new trial seeking to set aside a jury verdict. The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the motion, finding that the jury’s verdict was impermissible as a matter of law.

  • A client came to the firm with a default judgment having been entered against him by the Alameda County Superior Court in excess of $100,000. Decker Law filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, arguing that the judgment was void for improper service. The trial court agreed, granted the motion, and voided the judgment in its entirety.

    The firm thereafter filed an anti-SLAPP, which resulted in (1) a dismissal of the case against the client, and (2) an award of attorneys’’ fees in his favor.

  • Decker Law represented a general contractor whose license had been revoked by the Contractor’s State License Board (CSLB). The firm was successful in convincing a Los Angeles Superior Court judge that revocation was legally erroneous. The trial court granted a writ of administrative mandamus, which ultimately led to the reinstatement of the client’s professional license.

  • Decker Law represented the Respondent in an action concerning the characterization of a marital residence. The firm’s client was successful: the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s argument that the home was her separate property. (Marriage of Alamshahi (Sep. 13, 2022, No. C094347) [2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5579].)

  • A client came to the firm with a default judgment having been entered against him in excess of $100,000. After reviewing the record, Decker Law filed a motion to vacate the default judgment based on a technical defect in the plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court agreed and vacated the judgment in its entirety.

  • This case involved yet another default judgment exceeding $100,000. Decker Law filed a motion to vacate the default judgment based on a technical defect in the plaintiff’s complaint. The San Diego County Superior Court agreed and vacated the judgment in its entirety, thus allowing the case to proceed on the merits.

  • Decker Law was retained by an attorney seeking to reverse a substantial award of attorneys’ fees that the Los Angeles Superior Court had ordered him to pay. The firm filed a motion asserting numerous arguments as to why the attorneys’ fees award was improper. The Los Angeles County Superior Court agreed and set aside its own order.

  • Decker Law was retained by an individual against whom a restraining order had been placed by the San Diego County Superior Court. The firm filed a motion to set aside the order, arguing that the matter needed to be “re-tried” due to absence of a material witness. The trial court granted the motion and dissolved the restraining order pending a new hearing.

  • Decker Law represented a client seeking to a set aside a guilty plea. The firm convinced an Orange County Superior Court judge that the plea was invalid because it was the byproduct of coercion, and that the client deserved her day in court.

  • The First District Court of Appeal (San Francisco) granted Decker Law’s petition for writ of mandate, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding a foreign-based litigant from making remote appearances.

  • Decker Law represented a judgment creditor who had defeated the judgment debtor’s attempt to set aside the judgment in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The firm successfully convinced the Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) to affirm the denial of the motion. (Seung Hyun Lee v. Chul Hyun Kim (Feb. 27, 2025, No. B333225) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1211].)

Frequently asked questions.

Why chose a law firm that exclusively handles appeals?

If you are looking for a law firm that can handle your case effectively and efficiently, you should consider one that only works on appeals. Appeals are a complex and specialized area of law that require a high level of expertise and experience. A law firm that only works on appeals will have a deep understanding of the appellate process, the relevant legal issues, and the best strategies to present your arguments. A law firm that only works on appeals will also have a track record of success in handling similar cases and achieving favorable outcomes for their clients. By choosing a law firm that only works on appeals, you can ensure that your case will receive the attention and care it deserves.

Where are you located? What geographic regions do you serve?

Decker Law is located in Orange County, but the firm serves clients throughout California. We are able to accommodate clients regardless of their geographic location because (1) the vast majority of the work for an appeal or a writ is research and writing, which can be done from anywhere; and (2) unlike traditional litigation, which requires many court appearances, an appeal requires just one appearance—which often can be done virtually or telephonically. Therefore, whether you are in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or even all the way up in Siskiyou County, Decker Law can help you with your appeal or writ petition.

Do you bill by the hour or by flat fee (fixed cost)?

Lawyers traditionally bill by the hour (in six minute increments, actually). Although this traditional model is certainly available at Decker Law, we do offer clients flat-fee representation, a more client-friendly approach to providing legal services—and one that is more feasible with appeals and writs. Unlike trial court litigation, appeals are relatively predictable with regard to the amount of time that will be spent on a case. This makes a flat-fee arrangement a beneficial proposition for both you and us: You get the benefit of knowing exactly how much you are going to spend, and we get to focus on the case without the distraction of having to routinely send invoices and to track every last minute of time spent.

How much does an appeal cost?

The cost of appellate representation is going to depend on the nature of the appeal—and, specifically, the amount of time it will take to handle the case. An appeal of a motion for preliminary injunction, for example, will take much less time (and cost much less) than an appeal that follows a seven-week trial. The cost of representation, therefore, is based on (i) the amount of anticipated time that the appeal will take (if you’re paying by flat fee), or (ii) the amount of actual time spent (if you’re paying by the hour).

How long does an appeal take?

The appellate process can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. It depends on the case, the court’s docket, and any other number of factors. We tell our clients to not expect any swift resolution with their appeal.

What are my chances of overturning a decision on appeal?

There’s no way around it: obtaining a reversal is an uphill battle. Over the last several years, the California Court of Appeal has reported a reversal rate of approximately 17%. The reversal rates in the Ninth Circuit are typically even lower.

But this is not to say that an appellant should forgo his or her right to appeal simply because the odds appear to be low. If the appeal is viable, and the matter is significant enough to the appellant, pursuing an appeal is an important consideration—certainly given what’s typically at stake in litigation