VCARDBiography
Marc J. Poster is one of America’s leading specialists in appellate law and practice. For more than four decades, he has litigated hundreds of appeals and writ petitions in state and federal appellate courts nationwide. Marc’s clients – a broad spectrum of plaintiffs and defendants, appellants, petitioners, respondents and appellees, individuals, companies, insurers, and public entities – come to him again and again because of his proven client-centered approach, his passion to win, his brief-writing skills, and his high reputation in the appellate courts and legal community.
His appellate successes run the whole gamut of subjects, including torts, contracts, real property, insurance, constitutional law, family law, probate and trusts, professional liability and intellectual property. Marc also assists trial attorneys with critical motions and litigation strategy, so that if their cases go to appeal, they will be well prepared.
Marc was educated at Stanford University and UCLA School of Law, served as a Senior Research Attorney for the California Court of Appeal, and is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law, State Bar of California Board. Marc is a member and past president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and a past chair of various Los Angeles County Bar Association appellate practice committees. Marc also chaired the Beverly Hills Bar Association’s Amicus Briefs Committee and is a former President of that Association. Marc lectures and publishes extensively on appellate law and practice.
High Impact Wins
Dromy v. Assil, 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9298
Judgment for Damages and Attorney Fees Upheld, and More Fees Awarded
Dromy v. Assil, 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9298
Judgment for Damages and Attorney Fees Upheld, and More Fees Awarded
In the trial on cross-actions arising from loan transactions, Mr. Poster’s client recovered $86,890.64 in damages and $371,814 in attorney fees and costs. Adopting arguments urged by Mr. Poster, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and ordered that his client recover additional attorney fees for the appeal.
Camargo v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5946
Judgment for Damages Slashed
Camargo v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5946
Judgment for Damages Slashed
In a wrongful death action arising from care of a patient suffering from a devastating case of flesh-eating bacteria, the trial court entered judgment for more than $4,699,000 against a hospital and other defendants. Representing the hospital on appeal, Mr. Poster obtained a reversal with directions to reduce the judgment to conform to statutory limitations on judgments against health care providers and on apportionment of fault. On remand, the trial court reduced the judgment $175,000.
Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161
Made New Law
Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161
Made New Law
Mr. Poster established new law by extending the reach of the “disentitlement doctrine.” The doctrine bars an appellant from prosecuting an appeal from a judgment as long as he stands in contempt of court orders relating to enforcement of the judgment. In a case of first impression, the appellate court adopted Mr. Poster’s argument that the appellant’s contempt of another state court’s enforcement orders warranted dismissal of the defendant’s California appeal.
Publications
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2019 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
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.