Appellate Advocacy

Litigation does not always end at trial.  Many times, clients are faced with appeals, or the prospect of an appeal, which require unique and different skills from trial practice. 

Whether appealing an adverse ruling or working to protect a favorable outcome, Mandelbaum Barrett PC’s appellate lawyers have the skills necessary to carefully assess the trial record and craft persuasive and compelling arguments on appeal.  Our appellate attorneys begin their work at the trial phase, helping to identify, preserve, and evaluate issues for appeal, which arms our clients with the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on appeal.

Mandelbaum Barrett PC’s appellate lawyers have extensive experience successfully representing clients in state and federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  Our appellate experience spans all areas of our litigation practice, with notable victories in the areas of intellectual property, business litigation, employment matters, criminal matters, regulatory matters, and Uniform Commercial Code claims.  In addition, our appellate lawyers include former judges and judicial law clerks, which provides our clients with a unique view into what makes an appeal successful.

Pro Bono

Mandelbaum Barrett PC has an active pro bono practice at all levels of the appellate system. Mandelbaum Barrett PC attorneys have appeared as amicus curiae (literally, “friend of the court”) in matters involving broad public interests, providing pro bono representation to religious groups, non-profit organizations, and other associations on issues related to religious liberty, criminal law and constitutional rights, artistic freedom, and free speech.

Appellate Successes

Federal Courts

• GEICO v. Mount Prospect Chiropractic Ctr., P.A., 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024) (winning reversal of three district courts on behalf of medical practitioner clients in a landmark consolidated case holding that insurers’ New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act claims are arbitrable)

• Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (securing unanimous ruling on behalf of trademark applicant in appeal of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s refusal to grant trademark on grounds it was disparaging toward Asian Americans).
• Belmora LLC et al. v. Bayer Consumer Care AG et al., 137 S. Ct. 1202 (2017) (addressing whether Sections 14(2) and 43(a) of Federal Trademark Act allow foreign business that has neither used nor registered its trademark in United States to sue owner of U.S. trademark for conduct relating to owner’s use of its U.S. mark).
•  I.O.B. Realty, Inc. v. Patsy’s Brand, Inc. No. 20-1988 (2d Cir. 2021) (vacating trial court’s decision that ordered United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant plaintiff’s trademark application and dismissing case in favor of firm’s client).
• Mid-American Salt, LLC v. Morris Cnty. Cooperative Pricing Council, 964 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2020)  (affirming dismissal of complaint involving requirements contract).
• Scherer Design Grp., LLC v. Ahead Eng’g LLC, 764 F. App’x 147 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming preliminary injunction in favor of telecom engineering client in trade secrets and duty of loyalty case).

State Courts

• State v. Missak, 476 N.J. Super. 302 (App. Div. 2023) (reversing and quashing search warrant in cutting edge cell phone search warrant case)

• Carelli v. Borough of Caldwell, 474 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 2022) (reversing and granting summary judgment to municipal client in severance pay dispute)
• In re Corbo, 238 N.J. 246 (2019) (reversing decision of intermediate appellate court that overturned removal of a public employee for drug use and remanding to trial court to address evidentiary deficiencies).
• Margin Holdings, Ltd. v. Franklin Mutual Ins. Co., No. A-4224-18, 2022 WL 433231 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 14, 2022) (vacating summary judgment and discovery orders that had been entered in favor of adversary and remanding for trial).
• L.C. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., No. A-3307-19, 2021 WL 4955639 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 26, 2021) (reversing client’s Medicaid transfer penalty).
• Parko Properties, LLC v. Mercer Ins. Co. of New Jersey, No. A-4137-17T2, 2020 WL 6799137 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 19, 2020) (affirming judgment in favor of client on Superstorm Sandy insurance claim and reversing trial court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and expenses).
• Citi Structure, LLC v Capital One Bank, N.A., 170 A.D.3d 414 (1st Dept 2019) (affirming summary judgment in in favor of national banking client on Uniform Commercial Code claims).
• State v. Hand, No. A-0516-17T2, 2019 WL 3812415 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 14, 2019) (reversing jury verdict on money laundering charge).
• Citi Structure, LLC v Capital One Bank, N.A., 170 A.D.3d 414 (1st Dept 2019) (affirming summary judgment in in favor of national banking client on Uniform Commercial Code claims).
• Sparroween v. Twp. of W. Caldwell, 452 N.J. Super. 329 (App. Div. 2017) (affirming dismissal of claims on grounds that local ordinance was not superseded by state law).
• Temp Realty Corp. v. Man Tong He, 150 A.D.3d 1037 (2d Dept. 2017) (reversing trial court order and entering summary judgment in favor of national banking client on Uniform Commercial Code claims).
• Garden Howe Urban Renewal Assocs., LLC v. HACBM Architects Engineers Planners, LLC, 439 N.J. Super. 446 (App. Div. 2015) (reversing and remanding dismissal of claims where trial court mistakenly barred expert report and declined to extend discovery to address purported expert deficiencies).
• SAE Power Inc. et al. v. Avaya Inc. et al., No. A-3894-12T3, 2014 WL 982562 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014) (affirming trial court’s ruling that held that defendant had waived its right to arbitration by virtue of, among other things, engaging in protracted document discovery)

Amicus Curiae Matters

• State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360 (2017) (arguing as amicus curiae to address appellate standard of review of video evidence and Fifth Amendment issues related to  police interrogation of defendant).
• State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263 (2017) (arguing as amicus curiae to address Fourth Amendment concerns regarding whether police officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain individual).
• E & J Equities, LLC v. Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Franklin, 226 N.J. 549 (2016) (arguing as amicus curiae to address First Amendment concerns related to digital billboard ban).