Bowman and Brooke Logo

PRACTICES & INDUSTRIES

While our firm is best known for defending automobile manufacturers, our lawyers counsel an array of Global 500 and internationally-based clients in high-stakes, national litigation in a range of industries.

Appellate and Advanced Motions

gavel on top of a document to congress

At Bowman and Brooke, we know that cases do not begin on the first day of trial and they do not end when the jury returns a verdict. The Appellate and Advanced Motions Team at Bowman and Brooke can help you at every crucial stage of your litigation.

Before trial, we can assist you and your trial team with motions related to venue, jurisdiction and choice of law; dispositive motions; Daubert challenges; motions in limine; as well as the overall legal strategy for your case. During trial, we assist with all legal arguments directed to the evidence, as well as directed verdict motions and jury instructions so that trial counsel is best positioned to prevail with the jury. All the while, we provide a watchful eye to preserve and position issues for appeal. At all times, our intent is to support, and not second-guess, trial counsel’s strategy. After trial, we know how to combine the research, writing, and oral advocacy skills that determine the outcome of post-verdict motions and appeals.

We pride ourselves on knowing the law and procedure and combining it with the art of persuasive advocacy on your behalf. In this regard, we are well-practiced at condensing a multi-month trial into a concise brief that captures the essence of our position and then being able to describe that perspective to the appellate court in the short time permitted for oral argument.

We can do this because we have handled appeals in civil, administrative and criminal matters on behalf of insureds, businesses and manufacturers in high-risk and bet-the-company situations throughout the country. We have decades of experience and knowledge in handling legal issues relating to product liability, property damage, catastrophic personal injury, premises liability, medical malpractice, employment, worker’s compensation and other tort-related, criminal and statutory claims. We have spent countless hours in the trenches during complex trials to advance legal arguments and have experience working seamlessly with in-house counsel and trial teams from other firms.

CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE.
  • Mar 15, 2015
    In McKenna v. Breg, Inc., No. G048732, 2015 WL 917827 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), a California appellate court upheld a jury verdict for device maker Breg, Inc. in February of 2013, after a three and a half week trial in the Superior Court for the State of California for the first bellwether case in the California infusion pump JCCP to go to trial, a jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Breg, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Breg was negligent and strictly liable for providing inadequate warnings with its Pain Care 3000 infusion pump.
  • Oct 10, 2014
    Pasadena, CA
    On October 10, 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a defense verdict in favor of Jaguar following a jury trial involving alleged electrical issues with a 2007 Jaguar XK. In the original trial, Brownfield v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, the jury unanimously ruled that Jaguar was not in violation of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
  • Sep 10, 2010
    Daytona Beach, FL

    In Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 46 So. 3d 1020, 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010), the court reversed a $53 million verdict against Teledyne and ordered a new trial again on the improper admission of evidence concerning other accidents. Bowman and Brooke attorneys were also successful on this issue in Hall-Edwards v. Ford, 971 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), Bowman and Brooke attorneys obtained a reversal of a $60 million verdict because the court erred as a matter of law in admitting evidence of other accidents without requiring the plaintiff to meet their burden of proving substantial similarity. 

  • Aug 12, 2010
    Miami, FL
    Last Thursday, in the case of Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in a published opinion the rulings of Judge K. Michael Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida excluding the general and specific causation testimony of plaintiff expert Gary Poehling, M.D., and granting summary judgment for pain pump manufacturer Breg, Inc.
  • Feb 10, 2010
    Miami, FL

    In Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School, Inc. v. Maynoldi, 30 So. 3d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010), the family of a teenager severely injured in an auto accident sued his school and the Archdiocese of Miami alleging they were responsible for a party that occurred after school hours and off-campus. After an 8-week trial, the jury awarded $58 million, resulting in a $12 million judgment after application of comparative fault. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed for entry of judgment in the school’s favor, finding the school had no duty to supervise non-school related activities.

  • July 1, 2016
    Media Mention
    Miami Partner Wendy Lumish has been named one of the "Top 250 Women in Litigation" by Benchmark Litigation. This recognition is dedicated to honoring the accomplishments of America’s leading female litigators, and Wendy's influential appellate practice has certainly solidified her as a distinguished attorney among her peers.
  • June 9, 2016
    Legal Alert
    On June 9, 2016, the United States Supreme Court undid a previously well-established and generally widespread rule in American civil jurisprudence, allowing a trial court to re-empanel a jury—after it has been discharged at the end of the case—to continue deliberations to address a problem with their verdict. Every trial and appellate attorney should be aware of the potential impact of this ruling before your next trial.
  • June 6, 2016
    News

    Bowman and Brooke has once again been ranked by Chambers USA in the areas of product liability and mass tort litigation. The firm was recognized for the fourth consecutive year in Band 2 of the Nationwide Product Liability category.

    According to Chambers USA 2015, the firm is known nationally for "[i]mpressive trial bench with broad capabilities in the automobile space, representing major clients in bet-the-company litigation. Growing profile in other industry sectors, with notable highlights in toxic tort and medical device product liability."

  • February 1, 2016
    News
    Bowman and Brooke's expansion into Florida with the opening of two offices in Miami and Orlando was featured in a Law360 exclusive article, "Bowman and Brooke Expands To Florida With Merger, Laterals." The article covers the addition of Florida-based product liability firm Seipp, Flick & Hosley LLP, along with partners Wendy Lumish and Robert Rudock who have joined the firm as well.

Integrated Services

In addition to providing stellar legal counsel, we integrate our provision of other key services with the work of our legal teams. The result? Highly effective and efficient client service.