APPELLATE LITIGATION

The following are some representative appeals that Norvik has successfully briefed to California and Federal appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court:

• Authored a successful opposition to a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in a novel ERISA matter involving a circuit split where the opposing party seeking the grant of certiorari was represented by former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, Neal Katyal.  Cho v. First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 852 Fed. Appx. 304 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1118 (2022).

• Authored an appellate brief and obtained a favorable ruling for a venture capitalist client affirming the trial court's denial of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by a professional tennis player and allowing the venture capitalist's claim of slander against the professional tennis player to move forward.  Kaplan v. Gimelstob, B315197, Cal. App. Unpub. (2022).

• Obtained a favorable ruling affirming a district court’s order that an ERISA plan and major insurance company acting as the claims administrator did not abuse their discretion in terminating the appellant's supplemental long term disability benefits pursuant to the applicable plan's pre-existing condition clause.  Sorger v. Novartis Corporation Death Benefit & Disability Plan, et al., No. 20-15224, 2021 WL 3758280 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2021).

• Authored an appellate brief and obtained a favorable ruling affirming a district court's dismissal of a claim for ERISA benefits where plaintiff relied on "generalized allegations" about plan breaches but failed to identify "any plan terms that specify benefits that the defendants were obligated to pay but failed to pay."  Health Glendale Outpatient Surgery Ctr. v. United Healthcare Servs., No. 19-55412, 805 Fed. App’x 530, 2020 WL 2537317 (9th Cir. May 19, 2020).

• Co-authored an appellate brief and argued before the Ninth Circuit in a pro-bono appeal involving novel issues of the right to bodily privacy under the Fourth Amendment and qualified immunity and secured a favorable published opinion.  Ioane v. Hodges, 903 F.3d 929 (9th. Cir. 2018).

We are open to working with you to find the best way to pay for our representation in appellate cases.  In most appellate matters, we believe that a fixed fee arrangement works best for both the attorney and the client.  With a fixed fee arrangement, the attorney is free to explore all legal arguments and conduct research without concerns of rising legal fees, and the client benefits from predictability in their legal bills.  However, depending on the circumstances, we are certainly open to discussing a traditional hourly fee arrangement for appellate matters.