CALG wins three writs of mandate in a single week

One of many strengths that make CALG unique among appellate specialty firms is the depth of its California appellate writs practice. Many of the firm’s lawyers have extensive experience with appellate writs, and several previously served as writs attorneys on the Court of Appeal. The firm’s expertise was on display earlier this month when CALG won three appellate writs in a single week.

First, on October 30, 2026, Michael von Loewenfeldt and Jocelyn Sperling defeated a petition for writ of mandate in California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose. The petition, brought by an auto insurer, sought to summarily defeat a personal injury lawsuit on the theory that a pre-litigation settlement had already been reached, even though the trial court had twice denied summary judgment on that argument. The appellate court had requested a response, which indicates that it was seriously considering granting the petition. After CALG was retained as appellate counsel and submitted the opposition, the Court of Appeal denied the petition.

Then, later that same day, Melanie Gold and Charles Kagay obtained a suggestive Palma order in response to a petition for writ of mandate they filed in California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego. Their petition challenged a trial court ruling permitting an opposing party a stay of a judgment involving a money judgment and real estate sale without posting a bond, a decision with millions of dollars in implications for CALG’s client. The Court of Appeal’s order advised the trial court to vacate its ruling within 10 days or it would issue an order requiring it to do so, and the trial court promptly complied.

And just a few days later, on November 2, Steve Hirsch and James Heideman obtained a rare written opinion in a writ victory from California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose. The petition, which CALG opposed, arose out of litigation against CALG’s client, former Hone Capital CFO Purvi Gandhi, and challenged the good faith of Gandhi’s settlement of civil litigation with a cluster of foreign corporations. The opinion affirmed the trial court’s broad discretion to determine the good faith of settlements and rejected the argument that a cooperation clause in a settlement agreement satisfies a challenger’s burden of proving bad faith as a matter of law. You can see the written writ opinion in Wu v. Superior Court by clicking here.