Zareh Jaltorossian

Appellate Specialist And Seasoned Business Litigator

Attorney Zareh Jaltorossian is certified as a Specialist in Appellate Law by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. He is also a seasoned business litigator with more than 20 years of experience working closely with companies and corporations of all sizes.

Zareh’s appellate practice focuses on appeals and interlocutory writs in state and federal courts. He has handled and argued numerous appeals across a broad range of substantive areas, including state tax, product liability, employment, business litigation, commercial real estate, health/managed care litigation, and consumer class actions. Additionally, Attorney Jaltorossian works closely with trial attorneys at all stages of litigation to advise them regarding record preservation issues and to assist with the preparation of complex motions, including dispositive and post-trial motions, all with the goal of maximizing the chances of success on appeal.

Our law firm and our clients can also call upon Zareh for his broad and deep experience as a business litigator. He has personally litigated lawsuits involving partnerships, commercial real estate conflicts, employment matters, and consumer class actions, building a history of success.

Big Firm Power With Small Firm Accessibility And Personalized Customer Service

After attending UCLA and UCLA Law School, Zareh spent the vast majority of his career at two prestigious, global law firms. For every case he accepts, Zareh brings "big firm" experience and insight while also providing our clients the benefits of “small firm” representation, like competitive hourly rates and a personalized approach to casework.

Externships With Federal Court Judges

To round out his legal career, Attorney Jaltorossian has extern for Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and United States District Court Judge Dean Pregerson. Furthermore, he has published extensively on developments in appellate and other areas of law. He has also spoken and lectured frequently on appellate issues for a wide variety of audiences, including trial attorneys.

Education

• The University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, JD, 1999
• University of California, Los Angeles, BA, Philosophy and Political Science, 1996
  • Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa

Professional Experience

• The Honorable Harry Pregerson, Judicial Extern, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Fall 1998)
• The Honorable Dean Pregerson, Judicial Extern, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Summer 1997)

Published Articles

• For Whom The Death Knell Doctrine Tolls In State Courts, Los Angeles Daily Journal (August 2016)
• 9th Circuit Joins 7th In Striking Class Action Waivers, Los Angeles Daily Journal (September 2016)
• California Supreme Court To Decide Borrowers’ Standing to Challenge Mortgage Loan Assignments, ABTL Report, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4 (Fall 2015/Winter 2016)
• Are You Sure That Final Judgment Is Final? Los Angeles Daily Journal (March 2012)
• Navigating The Shores Of Invited Error, Los Angeles Daily Journal (March 2012)
• "Denial of Class Certification: Preserving to Right to Appeal," Los Angeles Daily Journal, (February 16, 2010)
• "An Appealing Approach to Deadline Filing," Daily Journal, (October 6, 2008)
• "Appellate Practice, Ground Rules," Los Angeles Daily Journal, (February 15, 2008)
• "Objections to Evidence," Los Angeles Daily Journal, (November 29, 2007)
• "Strict Compliance," Los Angeles Daily Journal, (May 1, 2007)
• "Losing Summary Judgments," Los Angeles Daily Journal, (December 14, 2006)
• "The Dynamics of Appellate Oral Argument," Certworthy, (Summer 2006)
• "Three Reasons for Thinking Twice Before Filing a Frivolous Appeal," Orange County Lawyer, (April 2006)

Associations & Certifications

• Certified as a Specialist in appellate law by State Bar of California
• LACBA, Appellate Courts Section, member
• State Bar of California (1999), United States District Court and United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, and United States Supreme Court

Published & Noteworthy Cases

• A.R.D. Service, Inc. v. Freidin, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 678 (B318218, Feb. 1, 2023): Won affirmance of order denying motion to vacate default judgment in action alleging breach of commercial lease agreement.
• Hudson v. Tatevossian, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 473 (B317487, Jan. 23, 2023): Won reversal of summary judgment in medical malpractice action.
• Tadevosyan v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7577 (B319714, Dec. 9, 2022): Won writ petition reversing ruling vacating lis pendens in action alleging breach of contract for sale of real property.
• Nosrati v. Cronen, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6234 (B315738, Oct. 13, 2022): Won reversal of post-judgment order denying prejudgment interest in action alleging breach of contract for sale of real property.
• Chen v. Herschel, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1266 (B306200, Mar. 2, 2022): Won affirmance of $18 million judgment for compensatory and punitive damages after jury verdict in action alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress from hit and car resulting in death of plaintiff’s mother.
• Weisberg v. Jaurigue Law Group, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4943 (B309754, Aug. 11, 2022): Won affirmance of order granting anti-SLAPP motion in action alleging various tort claims arising from purported failure to honor attorney fee lien.
• Dua v. Dordulian, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4424 (B303302, Jul. 7, 2021): Won affirmance of order granting SLAPP motion dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
• Shui v. B.R. & Sons, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1226 (Feb. 21, 2021): Won full affirmance of jury verdict of $5.3 million in case involving injuries to plaintiff’s leg caused by vehicle collision.
• Gruber v. Yelp, Inc. ____ Cal.App.5^th ____, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 938 (2020): In class action, won published decision reversing summary judgment in case alleging violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Penal Code sections 632 and 632.7. Holding: (1) Non-consensual recording of communications during telephone calls violates CIPA even when the plaintiff’s own voice is not recorded; and (2) CIPA prohibits the use of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) to carry out non-consensual recording of communications during telephone calls.
• Huezo v. Ball (In re Huezo), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1947 (9^th Cir. BAP 2020): Won affirmance in Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel on both liability and damages issues of judgment for nondischargeability of debt, fraud and willful and malicious injury.
• Kiosea v. Ohannessian (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) (2020): Obtained order dismissing entire appeal as untimely.
• Green Farms, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2018/2019): First chaired bench trial resulting in judgment invalidating City of Los Angeles’ improper classification of wholesale and retail business for purposes of the LA business tax. Prevailed in post-judgment motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5
• Francisco v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (2018): Affirmance of jury verdict of $15.3 million in personal injury action
• AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.5th 1014 (2018): Writ of mandate reversing denial of summary adjudication in wage and hour case
• Greene v. True Crime, LLC, 2016 WL 930942 (2016): Affirmance of order denying anti-SLAPP motion
• Horton v. Endocare, Inc., 2016 WL 6311640 (2016): Affirmance in Court of Appeal of order granting summary judgment in action alleging bodily injuries arising from defective medical device
• Health Net of California v. Superior Court (2016): Order to show cause after writ of mandate petition reversing order compelling production of documents protected by right of privacy.
• Bank of New York Mellon v. Superior Court (2015): Writ of mandate reversing order denying summary judgment motion with directions to grant motion
• Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board, 229 Cal.4th 419 (2014): Reversal of order denying motion for attorney fees under attorney general statute
• Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board, 208 Cal.App.4th 1247 (2012): Reversal of order denying summary judgment motion. The Court of Appeal held a state tax provision providing tax benefits for sale of stocks in a qualified California small business was unconstitutional under dormant Commerce Clause
• Perez v. Torres, 206 Cal.App.4th 418 (2012): Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise is invalid where it fails to include a statutorily required acceptance provision
• Landeros v. Torres, 206 Cal.App.4th 398 (2012): Affirmance of jury verdict in excess of $30 million. The Court of Appeal held that Civil Code section 3333.4 does not preclude recovery of noneconomic damages against a drunk driver where plaintiff is an unlicensed permissive user of an insured vehicle
• Kompany v. Israyelyan, 2010 WL 450401 (2010): Reversal of unlawful detainer judgment against tenant after bench trial for possession, past-due rent, damages and attorney fees.
• 321 Henderson Receivables Origination LLC v. Sioteco, et al., 173 Cal.App.4th 1059 (2009): Reversed consolidated superior court order denying 11 petitions for approval of the transfer of structured settlement payments rights. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that contractual anti-assignment provisions are generally ineffective in barring transfers of structured settlement payment rights
• Mintz v. Blue Cross, 172 Cal.App.4th 1594 (2009): Dismissal of claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of alleged wrongful denial of health insurance benefits
• Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal.App.4th 1576 (2009): In class action alleging violation of wage and hour laws, obtained dismissal of appeal from order denying class certification
• Bidari v. Kelk., 90 Cal. App. 5th 1152 (2023): Won affirmance in published opinion of dismissal after order granting judgment on the pleadings in action for malicious prosecution.
• Longobardo v. Avco., 93 Cal.App.5th 529 (2023): Won dismissal in published opinion of appeal on ground that challenged order was not appealable.
• It’s My Seat v. Woodley et al., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26325 (9th Cir. 2023): In case alleging violations of RICO and commission of fraud arising from commercial loan transaction, won reversal of order dismissing plaintiff’s action for alleged violations of court orders and claim splitting.