David Hackett has a broad-based appellate practice in which he has briefed and argued numerous appeals, writ petitions, and dispositive pre-trial and post-trial motions on a variety of topics, including agency and partnership, anti-SLAPP motions, arbitration, civil procedure, contracts, constitutional law, employment, environmental law, evidence, family law, health care, probate, real estate, state and federal regulations, and tax, among many others. David has also developed expertise representing secured commercial creditors in appeals regarding California’s unique real estate foreclosure procedures and the law of suretyship and guaranty.
David received his law degree from Loyola Law School, where he was the valedictorian of his graduating class. He then served as a law clerk to Judge Gary A. Feess of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and to Judge Alfred T. Goodwin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Between clerkships, he was an associate in the Los Angeles office of Latham & Watkins, where his practice included complex civil litigation, international arbitration, internal corporate investigations, and white-collar defense matters.
David received his undergraduate degree from UCLA and he is still a dedicated Bruins fan. One of his prized possessions is an autographed copy of Coach John Wooden’s Pyramid of Success.
Some of David’s appellate victories include:
Carachure v. Scott (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 16
Clarified existing law regarding a court's power to (1) grant partial nonsuit on an affirmative defense and (2) unilaterally approve a settlement agreement
Clarified existing law regarding a court's power to (1) grant partial nonsuit on an affirmative defense and (2) unilaterally approve a settlement agreement
The Court of Appeal opinion confirmed that (1) a trial court can, and should, grant a partial nonsuit where an opening statement unequivocally conceded facts constituting an element of an affirmative defense; and (2) a trial court can unilaterally approve a settlement agreement where the guardian ad litem refused to seek court approval of a validly accepted settlement.
Southern California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1
Court of Appeal reverses judgment against GMSR’s clients and orders full enforcement of their property purchase rights
Court of Appeal reverses judgment against GMSR’s clients and orders full enforcement of their property purchase rights
In a unanimous published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, that limited the Colleges’ right to repurchase property under a decades-old contract. The court held that the repurchase right is a fully enforceable equitable servitude and that trial court erred in invoking the forfeiture doctrine to rewrite that servitude.
Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II, L.P. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 987
Court comprehensively analyzes the governing principles and application of the parol evidence rule under both California and Delaware law
Court comprehensively analyzes the governing principles and application of the parol evidence rule under both California and Delaware law
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of GMSR’s client in a multi-million-dollar contract dispute. The Court held that the parol evidence rules in both California and Delaware permitted the trial court to receive evidence of—and to enforce—an oral stock redemption agreement.
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329
Court establishes procedure for enforcing attorney liens against decedents’ estates
Court establishes procedure for enforcing attorney liens against decedents’ estates
In this first-impression case, the Court of Appeal harmonized some apparently conflicting laws and ruled that the holder of an attorney lien need not file a creditor’s claim in the probate estate of the deceased client.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.