|
|
Appellate Litigation
Katten’s Appellate Practice assists clients in defending their victories—and successfully challenging adverse rulings—in their most significant cases pending in state and federal appellate courts across the country. Combined, the members of our Appellate Practice have represented clients in hundreds of appeals across the country, covering all of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals as well as state appellate and supreme courts, and the United States Supreme Court. Clients often hire us at the appellate stage—following a win or loss—recognizing that appellate advocacy is a separate discipline that frequently requires specialized training and skills distinct from those honed in trial courts. Katten boasts more than two dozen former law clerks to state and federal appellate judges as well as attorneys who obtained substantial appellate experience as members of United States Attorneys' Offices and the United States Department of Justice.
Our team of appellate litigators has considerable experience representing clients in bet-the-company cases that raise novel issues involving intellectual property, bankruptcy, tax, real estate, health care, insurance, entertainment and media, technology, statutory interpretation, and matters of constitutional law. In recent years, Katten appellate litigators have served as national appellate counsel for the country's largest satellite television provider in more than three dozen cases raising issues of first impression under the Wiretap Act and Federal Communications Act concerning the unlawful interception of encrypted satellite transmissions; won a key ruling in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of several current and former Major League Baseball players who had invested money with accused Ponzi schemer Robert Allen Stanford; and convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.Circuit to overturn an adverse judgment against GEICO in a class action brought by auto damage adjusters seeking overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Consistent with Katten's long-term commitment to pro bono service, our appellate litigators also frequently devote their time, resources and talent to serving individuals and organizations in need of representation in the state and federal appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court.
Professionals
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Charlotte
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
|
New York
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
New York
|
|
|
New York
|
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
-
Grapevine Imports, Ltd. et al. v. United States (Fed Cir.):
Representing taxpayers in a case being watched closely by the tax bar and by attorneys practicing in the administrative law arena. The case not only will determine the important issue of whether an understatement of income resulting from an overstatement of tax basis for sold property can qualify as an omission from income giving rise to an extended six-year (as opposed to three-year) period for tax assessment, it is also expected to decide the more far-reaching issue of whether a government agency may use newly promulgated regulations to compel an appellate court to vacate a final judgment that the trial court had entered against the government before the regulations at issue had been promulgated.
-
Potomac Valley Orthopaedic Associates et al. v. Maryland State Board of Physicians et al. (Md. Ct. App.):
Representing petitioner medical groups in case pending in the Maryland Court of Appeals (the State's highest court) that will determine whether, under the Maryland Patient Referral Law, treating physicians in the fields of orthopaedics, urology, gastroenterology, cardiology and emergency medicine are permitted to furnish patients with medically necessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) services within the medical office setting. Maryland is viewed across the country as the key battleground on the issue of in-office advanced diagnostic imaging, and the decision in this case is expected to have far-reaching affects across the country on the ability of patients to choose to have needed MRI and CT services furnished in the offices of their own treating physicians.
-
Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., et al. (9th Cir. 2010):
Represented NBC Universal and Pilgrim Films in connection with the reality television series Ghost Hunters, broadcast on the SyFy Channel. This was the Ninth Circuit’s first published opinion regarding the scope of copyright preemption of implied contract and confidence claims since its controversial 2004 decision in Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., in which the Court of Appeals had held that such claims were not preempted. In Montz, the Ninth Circuit held that implied contract and confidence claims when based on the “pitch” of an idea in order to partner in a television show based on the idea were preempted by the federal Copyright Act. As a result of this ruling and the plaintiffs’ prior voluntary dismissal of their claim for copyright infringement in the face of a motion to dismiss that claim, our clients obtained a complete victory.
-
Malave v. Holder (7th Cir. 2010):
Represented, in cooperation with the National Immigrant Justice Center, a woman who had emigrated from Nicaragua and was facing removal from the United States based on "fraudulent marriage" charges. On a pro bono basis, Katten took the case on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and, in an important decision securing the procedural rights of immigrants, obtained a reversal of the order of removal. Even though the government's authority to order removal of an alien is unreviewable, the Court of Appeals held that before exercising this unreviewable power, the immigration judge had to furnish the alien with compulsory process to seek the adverse witness's presence, so that the truth of the writings may be tested. The decision protects an alien's statutory entitlement to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
-
Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Associates et al. (WA S.Ct. 2009):
Represented defendant orthopaedic surgery group and Washington State Orthopaedic Association in a case in which plaintiff alleged that physicians are not permitted to employ physical therapists in their medical practices and refer patients to those therapists for treatment. With more than two dozen state and national medical associations joining the case as amici curiae, Katten convinced the Supreme Court of the State of Washington that physician employment of physical therapists and related patient referrals are lawful under Washington's anti-rebate statute, professional service corporation act and common law corporate practice of medicine doctrine. The unanimous ruling of the Washington Supreme Court in favor of our clients has broad implications across the country for protecting physician-owned physical therapy services and other ancillary health care services furnished in physician offices.
-
Frank v. Dana Corp. (6th Cir. 2009):
Represented former CEO and CFO in securities class and derivative actions alleging material misstatements in connection with restatements, and in related SEC investigation. Katten was able to sustain on appeal dismissals of actions against clients. Following the termination of the SEC's investigation, no claims were asserted against the former CEO and CFO. Awaiting scheduling of oral argument on appeal from dismissal of federal securities law class action complaint against our clients arising from issuance of $44 million restatement and subsequent Chapter 11 filing of major public company.
-
The State ex rel. Beeler Schad and Diamond v. Ritz Camera Centers, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct.):
Represented a number of clients being sued for failure to collect use tax on Internet sales to Illinois customers. On the novel issues argued by Katten for the defense group in these consolidated whistleblower cases, the Illinois Appellate Court agreed that documents memorializing a purchase and disclosing that no use tax is being collected do not constitute “knowingly” false records giving rise to liability under the Whistleblower Act. The Appellate Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court on these issues and Katten used the Appellate Court's decision to leverage very favorable settlements with the State of Illinois for our clients.
-
Caltagirone v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (2d Cir. 2007):
Represented defendant fiduciaries in case involving allegations that they had breached their duties under ERISA by continuing to allow participants to invest in employer securities. In affirming our trial court victory dismissing the action against our clients, the Second Circuit agreed with our argument that the plaintiffs did not have standing under ERISA because they were not participants in the plan during the time of the alleged fiduciary breaches.
|
|