Kendra J. Hall

Kendra handles a wide range of complex appellate matters, including but not limited to:

Contract, Construction and Business Disputes: She has successfully represented clients in appeals involving breach of contract, fraud, fiduciary duty claims, and complex business disputes. Notable cases include those related to trade secrets, breach of confidentiality agreements, and disputes arising from commercial transactions and construction projects.

Employment and Labor Law: Kendra has extensive experience in defending employers against claims such as workplace harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. She has also handled complex appeals related to violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as claims under California’s whistleblower statute.

Real Estate and Property Law: Her practice includes appeals in real estate matters, such as disputes over lease agreements, zoning regulations, and property rights. She has represented both landlords and tenants in high-stakes cases involving rescission of leases and issues related to development and land use.

Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets: Kendra has successfully defended appeals in cases involving trade secrets, copyright disputes, contract breaches related to intellectual property rights, as well as business torts.

Family Law: Kendra handles high-stakes family law appeals, including those involving marital estates, spousal support,  the enforcement of premarital agreements and child custody.

Environmental and Administrative Law: She has represented clients in appeals challenging government actions, such as environmental regulations, land use approvals, and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

First Amendment and Anti-SLAPP Matters: She has worked on appeals related to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, as well as claims involving free exercise and free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Writs: Kendra has filed numerous “emergency” writ petitions, including obtaining stays in connection with a pending appeals.

Amicus Briefs: Kendra has filed amicus curiae briefs, also known as ‘friend of the court’ briefs, offering insight and relevant information on key issues in cases pending before the federal and California courts of appeal, as well as the California Supreme Court.

Recent Decisions (* denotes published)

• * Hay v. Marinkovich (4DCA1, Feb. 2025): Prevailed in appeal challenging a trial court’s order denying attorney fees to a former employee who defeated claims brought by a former business owner for trespass to chattels, conversion, receiving stolen property, violation of right to privacy under California Constitution, and violation of Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, alleging employee made and retained unauthorized copy of user’s computer hard drive containing private and confidential data.
• Timberlake v. Urbano (9th Cir., Dec. 2024): Served as local counsel in defeating an appeal brought by singer Justin Timberlake challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to strike a complaint brought by a documentary producer on the ground that allegations that Timberlake failed to negotiate a backend deal for compensation were not related to the speech-related creation or production of the documentary itself as would be required to trigger California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
• Executive Dynamics Search, Inc. v. Lawrence (4DCA1, July 26, 2024): Successfully represented commercial landlords in obtaining reversal of the trial court’s judgment following a 3-week bench trial on the ground that the trial court’s order granting rescission of lease was unsupported by substantial evidence establishing the cause of the alleged breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
• Promote Mexico, LLC v. Monster Energy Company (2DCA1, July 1, 2024): Successfully represented promotor of the Baja 1000 race in obtaining reversal of trial court summary adjudication order adjudicating the adequacy of Monster Energy’s tender of defense and directing payment of retroactive and future defense costs.
• Promote Mexico, LLC v. Superior Court Los Angeles County (2DCA1, July 1, 2024): Successfully obtained writ review and an order reversing the trial court’s finding that Monster Energy Company did not owe a duty to defend the Baja 1000 race promotor pursuant to a race sponsorship agreement.
• Cleveland v. The Behemoth (9th Cir., May 2024): Successfully represented employer in upholding a jury’s defense verdict on various state- and federal-law claims related to alleged workplace harassment and retaliation, including violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. (oral argument)
• In re Marriage of Kandah Diaz (4DCA1, March 2024): Prevailed in family law appeal challenging the trial court’s ruling in a bifurcated proceeding that a premarital agreement was valid.
• Dumps v. San Diego County Board of Supervisors (4DCA1, Mar. 2024): Appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of mandate objecting to the approval by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors of a transmission line and high-voltage substation on private land, used to connect two newly planned windmill farms located on tribal lands to San Diego Gas & Electric’s existing transmission lines.
• Sunfarms, LLC v. Eurus Energy/Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. (9th Cir., Jan. 2024): Served as local appellate counsel in successfully obtaining affirmance of district court’s order granting summary judgment regarding alleged breaches of a Consulting Services Agreement on the ground that plaintiff failed to present evidence that it has or is likely to suffer actual damages.
• Scurlock v. City of Coronado (4DCA1, Jan. 2024): Appeal on behalf of a property owner challenging a series of decisions issued by the City of Coronado applying regulations applicable to an integrated accessory dwelling unit.
• * Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (4DCA1, Jan. 2024): Appeal following a jury trial raising issues regarding the presumptions on appeal applicable to a jury’s duty to follow jury instructions and an appellate court’s ability to interpret an ambiguous special verdict.
• Neal Electric Corp. v. Clark Construction Group (4DCA1, Oct. 2023/Cal.Sup. Nov. 2023): Appeal of a judgment resulting from a trial court order denying a petition to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded its authority by requiring the parties to conduct an 8-week arbitration hearing involving 20 witnesses, 680 exhibits and in excess of $10 million virtually using the Zoom platform.
• The Board of Trustees of the United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 135; and United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 135 v. City of San Diego (4DCA1, Sept. 2023): Supervised appeal from a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City of San Diego’s compliance with CEQA based upon the approval of an addendum to a program environmental impact report for construction of a Home Depot in San Diego.
• McMillan v. Dooley (S.D. Sup. Appl. Div., July 2023): Prevailed on protective cross-appeal involving a trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution lawsuit arising from a family law proceeding.
• Alameda Auto Spa, LLC v. Los Angeles SMS Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless (L.A. Sup. Appl. Div. Jan. 2023): Successfully obtained dismissal of appeal in civil limited commercial unlawful detainer case based on untimely filing of notice of appeal and failure to challenge order denying request to reclassify case.
• Backcountry Against Dump et al v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, et al (9th Cir., Oct. 2022): Successfully represented tribe on appeal in upholding a Rule 19 dismissal of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging a $400-million windmill development project to be constructed on the tribe’s reservation.
• Teton Global Investment LLC v. LC Investment 2010, LLC (9th Cir., Oct. 2022): Served as local counsel on appeal successfully defending district court decision finding issue preclusion applied to a state court judgment granting guests of a condominium unit access to amenities at the Omni Resort & Spa.
• Save the Field v. Del Mar Union School District (4DCA1, Sept. 2022). Represented appellant community interest group in challenging Del Mar Union School District’s compliance with CEQA following an order vacating its Mitigated Negative Declaration for a school rebuild project.
• Gettel v. Saich (6DCA September 10, 2021): Prevailed in appeal challenging the trial court’s order striking plaintiff’s abuse of process complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute and order awarding attorney’s fees.
• Anthony Johnson v. Manuel Altamirano, et al (9th Cir., Aug. 2022): Successfully defended appeal of district court order dismissing malicious prosecution lawsuit because plaintiff/appellant did not prevail in the state court action filed against him.
• Viasat Inc. v. Acacia Communications, Inc. (4DCA1 May 2022): Served as local appellate counsel for complex appeal involving a $49 million contract award and trade secret claims.
• Bogue v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (4DCA1 April 2022): Successfully represented hospital in defeating physician’s appeal involving a claim under California’s whistleblower statute, Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 on ground that physician’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
• Dickerson v. Perry & Papenhausen, Inc. (4DCA1, April 2021): Prevailed in appeal arising from a complex, 8-week construction defect, fraud and breach of contract jury trial involving multi-million dollar damage cross-claims and a $5 million request for prevailing party attorney’s fees.
• Chhatrala Investments, LLC v. Elajou Investment Group, L.P. (4DCA1, Jan. 2021): Prevailed in appeal challenging trial court order sustaining demurrer to investor’s complaint containing numerous legal and equitable claims seeking return of $1.79 million in funds arising from the sale of a large downtown San Diego commercial parcel.
• In re Marriage of Dinesh (4DCA1, Aug. 2020): Prevailed in family law appeal involving a substantial marital estate and multiple challenges regarding reserved issues including division of property, spousal support, and sanctions. Decision affirming trial court orders addressed multiple issues of forfeiture, the admissibility of expert testimony, the sufficiency of the parties’ “stipulation” during trial, whether two published books were conceived of prior to separation, whether the trial court erred in refusing to retain jurisdiction over husband’s potential contract with Netflix, and multiple alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
• Storix, Inc. v. Johnson (4DCA1, Dec. 2020) Prevailed in appeal challenging jury’s finding of breach of fiduciary duty arising from business disputes between a software company, and its founder involving issues standing, judicial estoppel, evidentiary issues and the standards applicable to post-trial motions.
• Club One Casino, Inc. v. Perry (9th Cir., Dec. 2020): prevailed in appeal challenging district court’s dismissal of RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) brought by a gambling facility against a competing business claiming that funds from unlicensed investors were used to finance the relocation, expansion, and operation of its business in violation of the California Gambling Control Act.
• Storix, Inc. v. Johnson (9th Cir., Feb. 2020): Prevailed in appeal challenging award of $407,778.00 in attorneys’ fees arising from successfully defending copyright infringement claims as excessive. Trial court was found to have acted within its discretion and consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s directions on remand.
• * Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 2019): Obtained grant of review and argued before the California Supreme Court regarding exhaustion of remedies defense and whether a written protest was required prior to proceeding with class action lawsuit challenging municipality’s method of calculating wastewater service as violative of Proposition 218.
• * AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (4DCA1, Nov. 2018): Prevailed in appeal seeking to overturn trial court order that provision of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement which prevented employees from directly or indirectly from soliciting any employee of recruiter to leave service of recruiter for a specified period after termination of employment was void. Decision also held that identities and contact information of individuals who worked on temporary nursing assignments were not secret and thus could not be trade secret of employer.