Waymaker has extensive experience in federal and state appellate courts across the country in both criminal and civil litigation. A certified appellate specialist in California, Waymaker attorney Becky James has worked on hundreds of appeals and has argued more than 50 civil and criminal appeals before federal and state appellate courts. Becky previously served as Chief of the Criminal Appeals Section for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California.
We have argued a wide range of subject matters on appeal. In recent years, our arguments have covered subject matters including white-collar criminal defense, copyright law, the federal RICO statute, free speech rights, cyberbullying, anti-SLAPP law, forum non conveniens, insurance, general commercial disputes, and arbitration agreements. We have prepared influential amicus briefs on behalf of clients on important legal issues relevant to their businesses.
We meticulously prepare appellate briefs that focus on critical, dispositive issues. We then hone our argument to address only the most critical points and to prepare for questions from the bench. Generally, our approach has led to success. For example, in a high-profile anti-SLAPP appeal, we won a unanimous victory in the California Supreme Court in a trade libel dispute. Adopting our arguments, the Court published a precedent-setting decision that created a new two-part legal test for the catch-all provision in the anti-SLAPP statute.
In another notable group of cases, we represented a disruptive new technology company that was sued by the major broadcast networks for copyright infringement. Our client claimed that it had a statutory right to transmit broadcast television over the Internet as a “cable system” under the Copyright Act of 1976. The dispute between the parties attracted the attention of the media, with the Los Angeles Times reporting in an editorial that the case “could usher in a new generation of pay TV services online[.]” Although oral argument in the D.C. Circuit was scheduled for 15 minutes per side, the three-judge appellate panel (Merrick Garland, Brett Kavanaugh, and Patricia Millet) conducted oral argument for over two hours (Ryan Baker argued). At the end of the argument, then Presiding Chief Judge Merrick Garland commended the parties for their “excellent oral argument.” Shortly after that argument, the parties commenced settlement negotiations. Our client obtained a favorable confidential settlement.
Notable Engagements:
- FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc.
In a precedent-setting victory before the California Supreme Court, we won an anti-SLAPP appeal that reversed lower court decisions, resulting in the reinstatement of a trade libel lawsuit brought by the firm’s client. The trial court had dismissed claims brought by our client arising out of allegedly defamatory statements made about our client by the defendant business in confidential reports to advertisers. We successfully petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which unanimously reversed the lower court decisions. Adopting our arguments, the Court created a new two-part legal test that governs anti-SLAPP cases under the catch-all provision. This decision has been cited more than 900 times.
- FilmOn X, LLC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
In a two-hour long oral argument before the D.C. Circuit, we defended a new media company sued by the five major broadcast networks in a copyright dispute. We argued that our client—which used the Internet to retransmit broadcast television over the Internet—qualified as a modern-day “cable system” and was entitled to a statutory copyright license under the Copyright Act of 1976. Shortly after the argument, our client obtained a favorable settlement on confidential terms.
- Pimentel v City of Los Angeles
In a Ninth Circuit victory, we won reversal of an adverse summary judgment ruling in a class-action dispute. In this action, we represented a group of putative class members challenging the constitutionality of the defendant City of Los Angeles’ fines and related late fees for parking meter violations. The plaintiffs alleged that the City’s fine structure violates the Eight Amendment as constituting “excessive” fines. The trial court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in favor of our client.
- 6759 Hollywood Associates, LLC v. Museum of Selfies, Inc.
In a state court appellate victory, we successfully defended summary judgment rulings in favor of our client. The case involved an action for breach of a commercial lease with outstanding lease obligations of more than $2 million and additional property damage. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment on our client’s affirmative claims, and dismissed all cross-claims against our client. The Court of Appeal affirmed both decisions and ruled that our client is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal.
- Camargo v. Sunnova Energy Systems, Inc.
In a state court appellate victory, we reversed a trial court order denying a motion to compel arbitration brought by our client. The appellate court agreed with our argument that the trial court erred in making its decision on unconscionability grounds without giving our client an opportunity to brief the issue and present evidence.
- McMillan v. Chaker
In a Ninth Circuit victory, we successfully defended the dismissal of a RICO complaint brought against our client. In the case, plaintiffs alleged defendants violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) based on the predicate act of extortion by disrupting plaintiffs’ right to practice law. The appellate court upheld the district court’s finding that these allegations were insufficient to state a RICO claim as a matter of law.
- David v. Textor
In a Florida state court appellate victory, we won an appeal in a free speech dispute involving Florida’s cyberstalking law. The trial court had found that our client had violated the cyberstalking law by sending threatening text messages and emails to a competitor in a business dispute and by posting information about the plaintiff on social media and other on-line forums. The appellate court unanimously reversed, ruling that our client’s conduct did not constitute cyberstalking and that an injunction violated the client’s free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
- American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
In a closely-watched copyright dispute in the U.S. Supreme Court, we submitted an influential amicus brief in a case with important implications for the firm’s client. In the amicus brief, we argued that the dispute could be decided on an alternative legal theory not briefed by the actual parties or any other amici. Several Justices questioned counsel for the parties about this issue during oral argument and the Supreme Court’s majority opinion embraced much of the argument and language in our brief. The opinion was of immense importance to our client and highly effective in helping the client build its own legal case in a similar dispute.
- Whittaker v. Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP
In a California appellate victory, we successfully obtained a preemptory writ of mandate that revived a breach of fiduciary duty claim asserted by our client. In a legal malpractice dispute, the trial court dismissed a breach of fiduciary claim brought by our client against the defendant law firm. After we filed a petition for interlocutory review, the appellate court ordered the trial court to reconsider its decision. The trial court subsequently reversed its own order and ruled in our client’s favor.
- Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment
In a Ninth Circuit victory, we successfully represented Mattel in one chapter in the highly publicized legal battle over Barbie and Bratz dolls concerning an insurance indemnity and subrogation issue. The Ninth Circuit agreed with our argument that no further insurance payments were required, as the issue had not been properly raised in the trial court and was therefore waived.
- Jones v. Jacobson
In a state court appellate victory, we won affirmance of a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The defendants, a group of Societe Generale affiliates, had moved to compel our client to arbitrate based on a contract the client had signed with another entity affiliated with Societe Generale. In a published opinion, the court of appeal found that “[e]ven the strong public policy in favor of arbitration does not extend to those who are not parties to an arbitration agreement or who have not authorized anyone to act for them in executing such an agreement.” The case then proceeded in the trial court and was eventually favorably resolved on confidential terms.