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. His most notable successes involve employment disputes, where his briefing has helped to shape California law in favor of workers’ rights. He also serves as a panel attorney for the California Appellate Project, where he writes and argues appeals for indigent criminal defendants. Representative cases include:
Johnson v. Pasadena Hospital Association (Dec. 28, 2023, B321794). The California Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of Stiller Law Firm’s client, a nurse at Huntington Hospital, allowing her 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.