Successful Outcomes

Decker Law was able help its clients obtain a reversal of two sanctions awards that were issued under Family Code section 271. The Court of Appeal, 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 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 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 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 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 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 via the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal 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.