Success on Appeal

Ari Stiller handles appeals in a wide range of areas, including personal injury, employment, contract and business disputes, insurance bad faith, and anti-SLAPP. Ari will only work on appeals he thinks he can win. Representative cases include:

Current Representations

• Business Litigation Appeal. Stiller Law Firm represents a business partner who claims he was forced out of a startup company and had his name removed as inventor on several patents. Stiller Law Firm is attempting to vacate an arbitration award against the partner and protect his rights on appeal.

• Trial Consulting. Stiller Law Firm is serving as “embedded appellate counsel” in a trial regarding the dumping of hazardous waste at an oil dehydration facility in Bakersfield. SLF is consulting with the trial attorneys on law and motion matters and ensuring that the facility’s appellate rights are preserved.

• Business Litigation Appeal. Stiller Law Firm is currently handling an appeal on behalf of the former owner of a cosmetics business. He claims that his former business partner did not comply with her obligations under a settlement agreement. SLF’s client appealed after the trial court ruled in the other partner’s favor.

• Family Law Appeal. Stiller Law Firm is representing a husband in an appeal from a family law bench trial. The family court awarded half of the husband’s community property to his wife as a sanction and Stiller Law Firm is seeking a reversal on appeal.

Previous Representations

• Whitehead v. City of Oakland, 17 Cal.5th 735 (2025). The California Supreme Court agreed with Stiller Law Firm’s position as amicus counsel that a release signed as part of a long-distance cycling event did not bar an injured cyclist from seeking recovery against the City of Oakland for failing to safely maintain city streets.

• Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners,  15 Cal.5th 939 (2024). The California Supreme Court agreed with Stiller Law Firm’s position as amicus counsel that a medical power of attorney authorizing an agent to make "healthcare decisions" does not vest the agent with power to force the principal’s medical malpractice claims into arbitration.

• Guerrero v. TruConnect Communications (May 8, 2024, BB324938). The California Court of Appeal affirmed denial of arbitration, deferring to the lower court’s finding that an arbitration agreement signed by Stiller Law Firm’s client was tainted by unconscionability.

• Johnson v. Pasadena Hospital Association (Dec. 28, 2023, B321794). The California Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment that had been entered for Huntington Hospital. This allowed Stiller Law Firm’s client, a nurse at the hospital, to proceed to trial on claims of retaliation and wrongful termination.

• Olague v. United Care Facilities, LLC (Sept. 29, 2023, B323075). The California Court of Appeal agreed with Stiller Law Firm’s argument that a healthcare company had not provided a sufficient record to reverse the trial court’s order denying arbitration.

• Nirschl v. Schiller, 91 Cal.App.5th 386 (2023). The California Court of Appeal held that severance negotiations do not necessarily qualify as protected speech under California's anti-SLAPP law. This ruling allowed Mr. Stiller’s client, a former nanny for a powerful Hollywood movie producer, to move forward with claims that the producer defamed her during severance talks.

• Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc., 86 Cal.App.5th 1184 (2022). The California Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Stiller’s argument that demonstrators at Costco are entitled to Labor Code protections.

• Meda v. Autozone, Inc., 81 Cal.App.5th 366 (2022). The California Court of Appeal found triable issues of whether Autozone failed to provide Mr. Stiller’s client with suitable seating.

• Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (2020). The California Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Stiller’s argument that his client retained standing to seek penalties on behalf of the state for Labor Code violations that he had settled in his individual capacity.

• Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (2020). The California Supreme Court adopted the reasoning in Mr. Stiller’s amicus brief arguing that employers must compensate employees for mandatory security screenings.

• Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018). The California Supreme Court adopted the reasoning of Mr. Stiller’s amicus brief arguing that employers cannot rely on a “de minimis” theory to avoid paying employees for all hours worked.

• Mostafavi v. Serratos (May 28, 2019, B285638). The California Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Stiller’s argument for enforcing an arbitration agreement and upheld an arbitration award in favor of his clients.

• Kane v. Valley Slurry Seal Co. (May 8, 2018, C079558). The California Court of Appeal upheld a class-action trial verdict in favor of Mr. Stiller’s clients as well as a fee award of approximately $1 million.

• Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equipment Co., 15 Cal.App.5th 1 (2017). The California Court of Appeal partially reversed an order compelling Mr. Stiller’s client to arbitrate his employment claims based on an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement.

• Lopez v. Friant & Associates, LLC, 15 Cal.App.5th 773 (2017). In an issue of first impression, the California Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Stiller’s argument that employees do not need to prove injury to prevail on private attorney general claims for wage statement violations.