1) Civil Appeals and Writs 2) Criminal Appeals and Writs 3) Civil Litigation/Defamation and Related Torts

Civil Appeals and Writs

     Prior to any decision in the trial court, Mr. Kleven can assist trial counsel to ensure that all issues are prperly preserved for a possible appeal.  After a case has been won or lost at the trial level, he will consult with potential clients and their counsel to evaluate the issues that might be raised on appeal, and help determine the best way to handle those issues.  Mr. Kleven personally performs all of the necessary legal research, drafts all briefs, and handles any oral arguments.      

     These are some of the civil appeals Mr. Kleven has briefed or argued.

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. (1991) 501 U.S. 496.  The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that journalists may not fabricate defamatory quotations and attribute them to public figures if any alteration of the actual words used by the public figure results in a material change in meaning.  Mr. Kleven drafted the successful petition for writ of certiorari and handled all of the briefing in this case for plaintiff/appellant.

SDV/ACCI, Inc., et. al. v. AT&T Corporation, et al.(9th Cir. 2008)522 F.3d 355. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part the Northern District of California's summary judgment for defendants in this defamation case involving statements by AT&T regarding the reasons that a vendor had terminated its agreement with them. The Court found that the vendor had raised triable issues of material fact as to wether AT&T had published the statements in good faith, reversing summary judgment as to the vendor based on the common interest privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision c. The Court affirmed summary judgment as to the individual plaintiffs on the grounds that the statements referred only to their company. The case eventually settled. Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for plaintiffs/appellants. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here.

U.S. ex rel. Bhatnagar v. Kiewit Pacific Co, et al. (2002), Case No. 00-17230.  The Ninth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the defendant in this qui tam case involving allegations that defendant submitted false claims to the government. The case eventually settled.  Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for plaintiff/appellant. You can read Appellant's Opening Brief here.

Hebrew Academy of San Francisco v. Goldman et al.(2007) 42 Cal.App.4th 883. The California Supreme Court unfortunately reversed the First Appellate District Court of Appeal's reversal (129 Cal. App. 4th 391) of a San Francisco County Superior court summary judgment for the defendant in this defamation case, holding that under the "single publication rule" the statute of limitations had run on defamatory statements contained in an oral history long before the libel plaintiffs discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, those statements. Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for plaintiffs/appellants in the Court of Appeal; you can read the Appellants' Opening Brief here. He also briefed and argued the case in the Supreme Court; you can read the Answer Brief on the Merits here, and the Answer to Amici Curieae Briefs here.

Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Company(1989) 48 Cal. 3d 711. The California Supreme Court held that the common interest privilege afforded by Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c), did not apply when a publication or broadcast to the general public pertained to a private individual. Mr. Kleven drafted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff/appellant.

Moreno, et al. v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., et al.,(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, Case No. F054138 (certified for partial publication). The Fifth District reversed in part a Fresno County Superior Court order sustaining a demurrer in this case involving the republication of plaintiff's myspace.com posting. In the unpublished portion of the decision, the Court reversed the demurrer as to plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the published portion, the Court held that even temporary publication of the posting online destroyed plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims. Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here, and the full opinion here.

Caminero v. Chung(2008), Case Nos. A119954, A120861. The First District reversed an Alameda County Superior Court summary judgment for the defendant in this malicious prosecution case, holding that the plaintiff had raised triable issues of material fact as to whether there had been a favorable termination of the underlying case, and whether the defendant had filed that case without probable cause and with malice. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here.

Unfair Fire Tax Committee v. City of Oakland(2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1424. The First district reversed an order sustaining defendant's demurrer in this case involving the creation of a fire suppression district. Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for plaintiff/appellant. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here.

Monastiero v. Intervideo, Inc. (2006), Case No. A109590.  The First District reversed a summary judgment for defendant in this breach of contract/fraud case involving promised shares of stock.  In a subsequent trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $1.1 million, plus interest.  The case settled during the course of a subsequent appeal. Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for plaintiff/appellant.  You can read Appellant's Opening Brief here.

Khawaja v. Khawaja (2006) Case No. A105815.  The First District upheld the trial court's decision following trial in favor of the cross-complainant in this quiet title/breach of contract case. Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for cross-complainant/respondent. You can read Respondent's Brief here.

Clement Corporation v. City of Antioch (2004, 2001) Case Nos. A101500, A090584.  In the first of these appeals, the First District reversed the Contra Costa County Superior Court's decision in favor of the defendant City in this case involving an unconstitutional special assessment district.  Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for plaintiff/appellant.  You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here. In the second appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's award of more than $230,000 in fees and costs under the "private attorney general" doctrine.  Mr. Kleven briefed the case for plaintiff/respondent at both the trial and appellate levels. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here.

Roe v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1997) 109 F.3d 578. The Ninth Circuit unfortunately affirmed the trial court, which had granted summary judgment for defendants on the grounds of governmental immunity in this civil rights case.

Weller v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal. App 3d. 991.  The First District affirmed a Marin County jury verdict of $2.3 million in this defamation case involving a series of broadcasts concerning the origin and value of certain antique silver candelabra that plaintiff had sold to the de Young Museum.  Mr. Kleven briefed the case for plaintiffs/respondents, and had participated extensively in the case at the trial level.

Criminal Appeals and Writs

     Mr. Kleven serves as an appointed attorney on panels for both the First District Appellate Project and the Sixth District Appellate Program, and has also handled non-appointed appeals.  After a case has been lost at the trial level, he will consult with potential clients and their counsel to evaluate the issues that might be raised on appeal or in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and to determine the best way to handle those issues. Mr. Kleven personally performs all of the necessary legal research and drafts all briefs filed in the appeal; he does not contract out any of the work.  

     These are some of the criminal appeals and writs that Mr. Kleven has handled:

People v. Ben Shalom (2009) Case Nos. A119420, A122367.  The First District Court of Appeal reversed reversed a Contra Costa County Superior Court conviction because the trial court had failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the defenses of consent and mistake of fact.  You can read Appellant's Opening Brief here.

People v. Quiles (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 612, Case No. A119615 (certified for partial publication). The First District unfortunately affirmed the imposition of an upper term based on prior juvenile adjudicationa of increasing seriousness.

People v. Sanchez (2007) Case Nos. H029254, H030654.  The Sixth District reversed a Santa Clara County conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, based on trial counsel's failure to redact inculpatory portions of a dispatch tape. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here. 

People v. Johnson (2005) Case No. A108205.  The First District reversed an Almameda County Superior Court finding that the defendant had violated a Cruz waiver, and remanded for further proceedings. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here.

People v. Mondo (2005) Case No. A107293.  The First District reversed a Contra Costa County conviction due to the violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and remanded with orders to grant a motion to suppress. You can read the Appellant's Opening Brief here.

People v. Cajina (2005) Case No. A107293 (certified for partial publication). The First District unfortunately affirmed a Contra Costa County case for failure to register, rejecting defendant's claim that the jury should not have been informed of his status as a sex offender.

In re Richardson (2003) Case No. A099747.  The First District denied a habeas corpus petition that had been consolidated with an appeal from an Alameda County conviction for second degree murder (Case No. A094311), without prejudice to refiling the Superior Court to address factual issues regarding ineffective assistance of counsel that had been raised in the petition. The Alameda County Superior Court ordered an evidentiary hearing and granted a Pitchess motion in Case No. 136690A, but ultimately denied the habeas petition. Following unsuccessful habeas petitions in the First District and the California Supreme Court, Mr. Kleven filed a federal habeas petition in the Northern District of California, Richardson v. Cate, et al., Case No. C 09-2227 WHA, which is currently pending.

People v. Augustine (2002) Case No. A096821.  The First District reversed a San Mateo County Superior Court order denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. 

People v. Henderson (2002) Case No. H024071.  The Sixth District reversed the trial a Santa Clara County Superior Court order revoking, reinstating and modifying probation because the trial court had improperly delegated its exercise of discretion to a probation officer.  You can read Appellant's Opening Brief here.

People v. Whitworth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 516 (depublished upon grant of review in Case No. S075158).  The California Supreme Court granted review after the Sixth District had held that a defendant may not bring a collateral challenge to the constitutionality of a prior conviction on the grounds that the defendant had not been adequately advised prior to an earlier guilty plea.  Mr. Kleven briefed and argued the case for defendant/appellant, and drafted the successful petition for review.

Civil Litigation/Defamation and Related Torts

Paul Kleven has represented both public figures and private individuals as plaintiffs in cases involving defamation and related torts. On rare occasions, he has also represented defendants who have been sued in these areas.  He has opposed a number of motions to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, as well as the inevitable motions for summary judgment, and has filed motions to strike himself in appropriate cases where he has represented defendants. 

In addition to his work in the defamation field, Mr. Kleven has represented individuals and companies in other areas of civil litigation, as both plaintiffs and defendants.

Here are some cases in which Mr. Kleven participated at the trial level:

Sykes v. Sykes-Hudson, et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 04138653. Mr. Kleven handled all aspects of this case for two of the principal defendants, who were alleged to have engaged in defamation, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related torts. The trial court dismissed all of the claims against one of the defendants pursuant to a motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and a motion for summary judgment. Although several claims against the other defendant survived to be resolved in a jury trial in September-October 2008, the jury found in favor of tht defendant on all counts.

Moreno, et al. v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., et al. Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 06CECG04125AMC. Mr. Kleven successfully petitioned for leave to file a late claim against a school district, and has handled all aspects of this case involving the republication of a demurrer (172 Cal.App.4th 1125), the case is set to go to trial in September 2010.

Northern California Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc, et al. v. Neutronics Enterprises, Inc., et al. Northern District of California Case No. C-03-1563 VRW. Mr. Kleven began as plaintiffs' co-counsel and ultimately handled all aspects of this case involving claims for patent infringement, defamation, breach of contract and related claims, which settled prior to trial in 2006.

Clement Corporation v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Superior court Case Nos. C93-03437, C95-03811. Mr. Kleven drafted and helped to argue a post-remand motion for attorneys fees under the "private attorney general" doctrine, resulting in an award of more than $230,000 which was upheld on appeal.

Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland, Alameda county superior court Case Nos. 650555-8, 650556-7. Mr. Kleven handled all aspects of this defamation case at the trial and appelate levels. Following a lengthy trial, a jury awarded plaintiffs $775,000, though the First District reversed the judgment. (47 Cal. App. 4th 364.) The case ultimately settled.

Weller v. American broadcasting Companies, Inc., Marin county Superior Court Case No. 120451. Mr. Kleven handled most of the pre-trial discovery and motion practice in this defamation case. A jury awarded plaintiffs $2.3 million, which was affirmed on appeal. (232 Cal. App 3d. 991.)