[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”Inner Top Banner and Title Section” module_class=”inner-banner-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ background_image=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/court-header-2.jpg” custom_padding=”120px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”80px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_phone=”50px||||false|false” background_last_edited=”on|phone” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Title” module_class=”leftborder” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ text_font=”|900|||||||” text_text_color=”#ffffff” header_font=”|700||on|||||” header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”#303030″ header_font_size=”40px” header_line_height=”1.3em” header_2_font=”|700|||||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#ffffff” header_2_font_size=”27px” header_2_line_height=”1.25em” header_3_font=”|700|||||||” header_3_text_color=”#ffffff” header_3_font_size=”27px” header_3_line_height=”1.2em” max_width=”700px” module_alignment=”left” custom_padding=”||||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”” custom_padding_phone=”||||false|false” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|phone” hover_enabled=”0″ text_font_size_tablet=”” text_font_size_phone=”20px” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_text_align_tablet=”left” header_text_align_phone=”left” header_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”30px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_line_height_tablet=”1.3em” header_line_height_phone=”1.3em” header_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”left” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_font_size_tablet=”32px” header_2_font_size_phone=”24px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_3_font_size_tablet=”27px” header_3_font_size_phone=”21px” header_3_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” text_orientation_tablet=”” text_orientation_phone=”” text_orientation_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_text_shadow_style=”preset1″ header_2_text_shadow_horizontal_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_vertical_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_blur_strength=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_color=”#303030″ global_colors_info=”{}” custom_css_main_element_last_edited=”on|desktop” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Main Content Section” module_class=”inner-content-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Main Text” _builder_version=”4.25.2″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_font=”|900|||||||” header_font_size=”48px” header_2_font=”|700||on|||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#000000″ header_2_line_height=”1.2em” text_line_height_tablet=”” text_line_height_phone=”” text_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”27px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”left” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_font_size_tablet=”” header_2_font_size_phone=”27px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Our firm has substantial, successful experience bringing and opposing appeals<\/a> in federal and state courts of appeal. Our appellate work has concerned federal antitrust claims<\/a>, complex business litigation<\/a>, and real estate litigation<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a recent antitrust appeal, we persuaded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a federal district court’s judgment on the pleadings against our client. This case was originally brought by the late Maxwell Blecher, a legendary trial attorney and antitrust specialist. Max passed away shortly after the case was dismissed on the pleadings. We were honored to bring the appeal, which concerned the proper meaning of the doctrine of antitrust injury.\u00a0By this appeal, we obtained a reversal of the judgment below and a remand of proceedings to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), where the case was subsequently settled on confidential terms before it reached trial.<\/p>\n Case Name<\/strong>: Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Santa Catalina Island Co<\/em>.\u00a0<\/em>(9th Cir. 2019, Case No. 18\u201355338). Here is the Ninth Circuit’s Decision<\/a> granting our appeal, and here are our appellate submissions: Appellant’s Opening Brief<\/a> and Appellant’s Reply Brief<\/a>. You can also see Mr. Markham’s appearance at oral argument in the video that appears towards the bottom of this page.<\/p>\n Our most recent appellate victory was in 2024 in a long-running dispute over a substantial property development. In this case, we persuaded a California Court of Appeal to reverse a judgment rendered by a California Superior Court.<\/p>\n In this case, our client asserted derivative and direct claims against two individual defendants, one of whom litigated cross-claims against our client. The jury found for our client on all claims and cross-claims and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages. After the jury trial, the Superior Court set aside several of the jury’s verdicts and on this basis absolved one defendant of all liability and rejected the jury’s awards of punitive damages.<\/p>\n We appealed from these rulings, as did one of the defendants. After reviewing the briefs, the Court of Appeal invited the parties to submit supplemental briefs on key issues of fact and law that principally concerned the fiduciary duties that a member-manager of an LLC owes to its other members.<\/p>\n Our efforts in this appeal proved successful. By its decision, the Court of Appeal reinstated all<\/em> of the vacated jury verdicts and reversed the judgment accordingly. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the defendant’s cross-appeal, awarded costs of appeal to our client, and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a trial on the amount of punitive damages that each defendant must pay. It was a virtually unqualified victory for our client, for whom we also recovered a favorable allocation of the derivative damages and a large fee award during post-trial proceedings.<\/p>\n Here is the Court of Appeal’s Opinion<\/a> in our client’s favor, as well as our appellate submissions\u2014Appellant’s Opening Brief<\/a>, Appellant’s Reply Brief<\/a>, and Appellant’s Supplemental Letter Brief<\/a>. You can also see Mr. Markham’s appearance at oral argument in this video<\/a> from 58:41 onward.\u00a0The case was originally tried by the late Daral Mazzarella, who passed away shortly after the trial.<\/p>\n Case Name<\/strong>:\u00a0Wardak v. WLOW Partners, LLC et al<\/em>. (Cal. App. 2024, Case No. G061606).<\/p>\n In our most recent antitrust appeal, we appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of national interest — Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc<\/em>.<\/p>\n In this case, we represented the plaintiff, a successful national healthcare staffing agency, which alleged that the defendant, the largest healthcare staffing agency in the country, had used unlawful no-poaching restraints and other contractual trade restraints in ways that unlawfully restrained and monopolized trade in violation of the Sherman Act.<\/p>\n After denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment for the defendant in a published opinion, doing so after more than three years of closely contested litigation in which we were opposed by a leading antitrust attorney from Washington, D.C. and his team of capable litigators.<\/p>\n On appeal, the Ninth Circuit issued its own published opinion, which affirmed the District Court’s judgment. Of note, the Antitrust Division of U.S. Department of Justice intervened on appeal to express its agreement with our statement of the antitrust law. Although we did not win, we capably conducted a major, nationwide antitrust litigation from start to finish in a closely fought case that resulted in two published decisions, and we credibly presented our clients’ claims and then raised a significant appellate challenge. Here are redacted versions of our submissions: Appellant’s Opening Brief<\/a> and Appellant’s Reply Brief<\/a>. They are representative of the kind of work that we perform at the highest level when called upon to do so.<\/p>\n Case Name<\/strong>: Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc<\/em>. (9th Cir. 2021, Case No. 20\u201355679).<\/p>\n In another antitrust appeal heard by the Ninth Circuit, we were opposed by some of the best antitrust attorneys in the country in a long-running case in which we represented the largest privately held manufacturer of precast concrete products in North America at all stages of the litigation from its start in 2006 until it ended in 2010. It was a major, national antitrust litigation in which we credibly presented antitrust claims, worked with a world-famous economist from Stanford University, and were opposed by leading attorneys from elite firms in San Francisco and Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n Case Name<\/strong>: Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc. et al<\/em>. (9th Cir. 2010, Case No. 09-15861).<\/p>\n In another case, decided in 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed jury and bench verdicts that we had obtained for our client on all grounds in California Superior Court for San Diego County. The Court of Appeal also granted our cross-appeal and thereby reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of a second defendant. It also awarded costs of appeal to our client. We subsequently concluded confidential settlements with the defendants.<\/p>\n Case Name<\/strong>.\u00a0Collins v. Name Redacted<\/em> (Cal. App. 2012, Case No. D056865).<\/p>\n We have also obtained affirmances in other appeals in the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District. These appeals concerned business litigations that proceeded to trial.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Title for VideoTape of Curtin Maritime” _builder_version=”4.24.3″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Times New Roman||||||||” header_font=”Times New Roman||||||||” header_2_font=”Times New Roman||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SxZwF5YMJWA” admin_label=”9th Circuit video — Curtin” _builder_version=”4.20.1″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_video][et_pb_text admin_label=”Title for Aya Video” _builder_version=”4.24.3″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Times New Roman||||||||” header_font=”Times New Roman|800|||||||” header_2_font=”Times New Roman||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=TVsgsY8PF-U&feature=emb_imp_woyt” admin_label=”9th Circuit Video — Aya Healthcare” _builder_version=”4.20.1″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_video][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Past Appellate EngagementsOur firm has substantial, successful experience bringing and opposing appeals in federal and state courts of appeal. Our appellate work has concerned federal antitrust claims, complex business litigation, and real estate litigation. Successful Antitrust Appeal: Reversal of the Judgment Below in Our Client’s Favor In a recent antitrust appeal, we persuaded the Ninth […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":30886,"parent":30914,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Our firm has substantial, successful experience bringing and opposing appeals in federal and state courts of appeal. Our appellate work has concerned federal antitrust claims, complex business litigation, and real estate litigation.<\/p> Successful Antitrust Appeal: Reversal of the Judgment Below. <\/strong>In one recent antitrust appeal, we persuaded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court's dismissal of the case on the pleadings. The case had been pled by the legendary Maxwell Blecher, a legendary trial attorney and antitrust specialist, who passed away shortly after this case was dismissed. We were honored to bring the appeal, and by it we obtained a reversal of the judgment below and remand of proceedings to the court below, a federal district court in Los Angeles. The case thereafter settled before it reached trial.<\/p> Lead Trial and Appellate Attorneys in Nationally Prominent Case. <\/b>In our most recent antitrust appeal, we appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of national interest -- Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc<\/em>. In this case, we represented the plaintiff, a successful, rising healthcare staffing agency, which alleged that the defendant, the largest healthcare staffing agency in the country, had used unlawful no-poaching restraints in ways that unlawfully restrained and monopolized trade in violation of the Sherman Act. After allowing the case to proceed during pleadings litigation, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment for the defendant in a published opinion after more than three years of litigation. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit issued its own published opinion, which affirmed the District Court's judgment.<\/p> In this appeal, the Antitrust Division of U.S. Department of Justice intervened to express its agreement with our statement of the antitrust law on point and we were opposed for the duration of the case by a leading antitrust attorney from Washington, D.C. and his team of capable litigators from one of the largest law firms in the country. Although we did not win, we capably conducted a major, nationwide antitrust litigation from start to finish in a closely fought case that resulted in two published decisions. We credibly presented our clients' claims, raised a significant appellate challenge, and respectfully disagree with its final disposition. Here are redacted versions of our opening brief and reply brief in support of our appeal. They are representative of the kind of work that we perform at the highest level when called upon to do so.<\/p> Lead Trial and Appellate Attorneys in Another Nationally Prominent Case. <\/strong>In another antitrust appeal heard by the Ninth Circuit, we were opposed by some of the best antitrust attorneys in the country in a long-running case in which we represented the largest privately held manufacturer of precast concrete products in North America at all stages of the litigation from its start in 2006 until it ended in 2010. It was a major, national antitrust litigation in which we credibly presented antitrust claims, worked with a world-famous economist from Stanford University, and were opposed by leading attorneys from elite firms in San Francisco and Washington, D.C.<\/p> Successful Appellate Litigation in the California Court of Appeal. <\/strong>We have also conducted appeals in the California Courts of Appeal. In one of these appeals, we obtained a reversal of the judgment below: the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District agreed with us that our client's claim had been wrongly dismissed on demurrer, and it remanded the case to the court below, which was the California Superior Court in San Diego County. We settled the claim after it was remanded.<\/p> In other appeals decided by the Fourth Appellate District, we received affirmances of successful results that we had obtained below in Superior Court, including one appeal in which we obtained an affirmance on all grounds after having won on all grounds at trial: in that case, which was tried in 2009, we obtained jury verdicts in our client\u2019s favor on all counts and then bench verdicts in our client\u2019s favor on all counts; then we obtained an affirmance on all grounds and confirmed our client's trial victory.<\/p> At present, we are lead appellate counsel in a case pending before the Fourth Appellate District in which predecessor counsel, the late Daral Mazzarella, obtained jury verdicts on all counts in our client\u2019s favor, but some of those verdicts were overturned by the Superior Court in Orange County on post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We are appealing, as is the principal losing party in the case.<\/p>","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-30947","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nSuccessful Antitrust Appeal: Reversal of the Judgment Below in Our Client’s Favor<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Successful State-Court Appeal: Reversal of the Judgment Below in Our Client’s Favor<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Lead Trial and Appellate Attorneys in Nationally Prominent Case<\/b><\/h4>\n
Lead Trial and Appellate Attorneys in Another Nationally Prominent Case <\/strong><\/h4>\n
Sweeping State-Court Appellate Rulings in Our Favor After Successful Jury Trial<\/strong><\/h4>\n
State-Court Affirmances after Successful Trial Outcomes<\/strong><\/h4>\n
CURTIN MARITIME CORP. v. SANTA CATALINA ISLAND CO.<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Ninth Circuit, Case No. 18-55338<\/h3>\n
WILLIAM MARKHAM P.C. OBTAINS APPELLATE REVERSAL<\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\n
AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. V. AMN HEALTHCARE, INC.<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-55679<\/h3>\n
WILLIAM MARKHAM P.C. BRINGS SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST APPEAL
<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n