David E. Hackett

Biography

David Hackett has a broad-based appellate practice in which he has prosecuted and defended numerous appeals and writ petitions, and briefed dispositive pre-trial and post-trial motions, on a variety of topics. They include: agency and partnership, arbitration, civil procedure, contracts, constitutional law, employment, environmental law, evidence, health care, marital property, probate, real estate, state and federal regulations, and tax, among many others. David has also developed particular expertise representing secured commercial creditors in appeals regarding California’s unique real estate foreclosure procedures, the law of suretyship and guaranty, the “one action” rule, and the anti-deficiency law.

David received his law degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, 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 recent appellate victories include:

• Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Cunningham (June 7, 2019, No. C076994, unpublished) – Court of Appeal affirmed $3.9 million judgment and held that “sham guaranty” defense failed as a matter of law.
• Sullivan v. Southern California Edison Company (July 12, 2018, No. D073454, unpublished) – Court of Appeal refused to order new trial of multi-million dollar tort suit.
• Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II, L.P., et al. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 987 – Court of Appeal affirmed judgment, comprehensively analyzed the governing principles and application of the parol evidence rule in California and Delaware, and complimented “all counsel on the excellent briefing and oral argument in this case.”
• In re Marriage of Wendelburg (Dec. 20, 2017, No. B270355, unpublished) – Court of Appeal held that spouse’s shares in corporation were separate property because they were acquired by gift.