Ben Siminou

Ben Siminou is a certified appellate specialist, and leads our Motion, Writs & Appeals practice group. Mr. Siminou handles law-and-motion and appellate briefing in complex, high-stakes cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States. He has notable wins in the California Supreme Court, Nebraska Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Court of Appeal. Between 2020 and 2023, Mr. Siminou defeated dispositive motions in cases with an aggregate value of $100 million.

In 2023, Mr. Siminou received the first ever “Appellate Case of the Year Award” from Consumer Attorneys of San Diego for Ross v. Superior Court, 77 Cal.App.5th 667 (2022), which held that efforts to tamper with a witness in a civil case are admissible at trial as consciousness of guilt, and may justify so-called “apex” depositions of high-ranking government officials.

In 2021, Mr. Siminou received the “XONR8R Award” from the California Innocence Project for his pro bono work in Larsen v. California Victim Compensation Board, 64 Cal.App.5th 112 (2021), which expanded the rights of wrongfully convicted persons to receive compensation for their time spent incarcerated.

In 2018, Mr. Siminou received the “Appellate Advocacy Award” from the National Civil Justice Institute in Washington D.C., which “recognizes excellence in appellate advocacy” nationwide. The award acknowledged Mr. Siminou’s work in T.H. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., 4 Cal.5th 145 (2017), a landmark decision by the California Supreme Court that greatly expanded rights for victims of mislabeled drugs.

Super Lawyers recognized Mr. Siminou as a “Rising Star” in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and a “Super Lawyer” in 2021.

Before entering private practice, Mr. Siminou served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable Michael G. Heavican, Chief Justice of the Nebraska Supreme Court. He then spent nearly a decade with Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP, before starting Siminou Appeals, Inc., a solo appellate practice.

Mr. Siminou earned a bachelor’s degree from Trinity University with a double major in political science and English. He graduated Order of the Coif with High Distinction from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where he was the editor in chief of the Nebraska Law Review and earned numerous honors and awards, particularly for his legal research and writing.

In 2020, Mr. Siminou joined the Committee on the Appellate Courts, a select, statewide group of appellate lawyers in the public and private sectors that help influence rules and procedure in California’s appellate courts. In 2023, he joined the board of directors for Consumer Attorneys of San Diego.

Mr. Siminou volunteers his time to pro bono cases and as a mentor for The Appellate Project, guiding law students of color or from marginalized groups who are interested in careers in appellate advocacy.

When Mr. Siminou is not writing briefs or consulting with trial lawyers, he can be found at the beach or on a hiking trail with his wife and children, in the gym, or on a racetrack in a car.

Mr. Siminou is admitted to practice in California, Nebraska, and the Second, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Writs & Appeals

 Atlas Pallet Corp. v. USS-POSCO Industries, No. A159332, 2021 WL 4272324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)

Ben persuaded the California Court of Appeal to reverse a judgment for a defendant in a case that arose when a trespasser on the defendant’s property started a campfire that spread to the plaintiff’s business. The trial court dismissed the case, finding that landowners do not have a duty to prevent trespassers from starting fires on their property. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal agreed with Ben that landowners have a duty to prevent trespassers from starting fires that might threaten neighboring properties.

| Read the Brief |

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Superior Court, No. D077934, 2021 WL 1918774 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)

In a case of first impression, Ben persuaded the California Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court’s ruling that Novartis’s counsel waived the attorney–client privilege when they failed to promptly ask the plaintiffs to return a privileged document that Novartis inadvertently produced in discovery.

| Read the Brief |

Larsen v. California Victim Compensation Board, 64 Cal.App.5th 112 (2021)

Working pro bono for the California Innocence Project, Ben persuaded the California Court of Appeal to hold that, under California law, a wrongfully incarcerated prisoner who establishes he is “factually innocent” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), is entitled to automatic compensation for his time spent in prison. The decision was notable because, in agreeing with Ben, the court expressly rejected a published decision issued by a different division of the same court just two months earlier. Ben was awarded the 2021 “XONR8R Award” by the California Innocence Project for his work in this case.

| Read the Brief |

McCarley v. Anesthesia Service Medical Group, Inc., No. D074353, 2021 WL 1540466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) 

Ben successfully defeated the defendants’ appeal from an $11 million medical-malpractice judgment following a jury verdict in favor of a young woman who suffered a severe brain injury during a medical procedure.

| Read the Brief |

Nolasco v. Malcom, 949 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 2020)

Ben’s amicus brief on behalf of the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys persuaded the Nebraska Supreme Court to abandon the parental-immunity doctrine, which prohibited minors from suing their parents for most torts. At the time, Nebraska was one of seven states—including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, and Louisiana—to recognize the doctrine.

| Read the Brief |

Omidi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 742 F. App’x 260 (9th Cir. 2018)

Ben persuaded the Ninth Circuit to reinstate a lawsuit by consumers who alleged they were defrauded into purchasing eye examinations from purportedly "independent" optometrists who were actually under Walmart’s extensive control as part of a scheme to sell more prescription eyewear.

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 4 Cal.5th 145 (2017)

After losing to Ben in the California Court of Appeal in T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 245 Cal.App.4th 589 (2016), Novartis — joined by members of its powerful lobby, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the drug industry, and the defense bar — appealed to the California Supreme Court. Ben and his co-counsel (Leslie Brueckner of Public Justice), persuaded the California Supreme Court to affirm the Court of Appeal’s decision. The resulting majority opinion broke with over 90 decisions from state and federal courts in other jurisdictions and became the first standing state supreme court decision in the United States to recognize that consumers injured by generic drugs have a cause of action against even brand-name manufacturers who negligently failed to add necessary warnings to the drug’s label. For their work in this case, Ben and Leslie received the Pound Civil Justice Institute’s 2018 “Appellate Advocacy Award,” a national award that “recognizes excellence in appellate advocacy in America.”

| Read the Brief | Watch the Oral Argument |

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 245 Cal.App.4th 589 (2016)

Ben persuaded the California Court of Appeal to reinstate a lawsuit that two minors brought against the brand-name manufacturer of an asthma drug for failing to update a drug label with warnings regarding the drug’s potential to disrupt fetal brain development. The minors alleged they were injured when an OB/GYN gave their mother a generic form of the drug to treat preterm labor. The Court of Appeal’s decision reinstating the lawsuit was just the third published appellate decision in the United States to recognize that consumers injured by generic drugs have a cause of action against brand-name manufacturers who negligently failed to add necessary warnings to the drug’s label, and was the first decision in the United States to expressly recognize such claims against a former brand-name manufacturer.

| Read the Brief |

Motions

Chung et al. v. Penske Media Corp., No. 18STCV10039 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dec. 21, 2021)

Ben defeated a motion for summary judgment in a personal-injury action arising out of a head-on collision during a media event for Robb Report magazine. One of the defendants (Penske Media Corporation) sought summary judgment on the grounds that the at-fault driver was an employee of its subsidiary, and therefore that it was not liable for the plaintiffs’ catastrophic injuries. The trial court agreed with Ben that Penske could be treated as the driver’s employer under a novel agency theory.

| Read the Brief |

Kumar et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., No. 18GECG00954 (Fresno Super. Ct., July 1, 2021)

Ben defeated a motion for summary judgment in a case arising out of a multiple-fatality collision at an intersection between a county road and state highway. The case presented the novel theory of whether an intersection is in a dangerous condition if the conditions of the roadway cause motorists to ignore an otherwise unobstructed “Stop” sign. The case also involved the question of whether a public entity can be held liable under a failure-to-warn theory if it is entitled to design immunity for the same public improvement, a question on which there is currently conflicting appellate authority. The trial court agreed with Ben on both issues, and denied the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal subsequently denied writ review of the trial court’s order by a 2–1 vote.

| Read the Brief |

Golden v. MedPro Group, Inc., No. 30-2018-01035776 (O.C. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2020)

Ben defeated a motion for summary judgment in an insurance-bad-faith lawsuit arising out of an insurance company’s failure to settle a medical-malpractice lawsuit, resulting in a $6 million excess judgment against its insured. The underlying medical-malpractice lawsuit arose when a vocational nurse mismanaged an infant’s breathing tube, resulting in permanent brain damage.

| Read the Brief |

Takahashi v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC, No. 37-2019-00020065 (S.D. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2020)

Ben defeated a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful-death case brought by the widow and minor son of a man who committed suicide while in the custody of a mental-health facility to whom he had been admitted for psychiatric treatment.

| Read the Brief |

Lefiti, et al. v. Allied Universal Security Services, et al., No. GCG-17-559883 (S.F. Super. Ct., Sept. 16, 2020)

Ben defeated a motion for summary judgment in wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuits brought by dozens of victims of a mass shooting at a UPS facility in San Francisco against the security contractor responsible for access control at the facility.

| Read the Brief |

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 37-2013-00070440-CU-MM-CTL (S.D. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2020)

After persuading the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court to reinstate the case, Ben defeated a motion for summary judgment in this long-running lawsuit against Novartis for failing to issue adequate warnings regarding its drug’s potential to disrupt fetal brain development.

| Read the Brief |

Affiliations

California Lawyer’s Association, Committee on Appellate Courts 

Consumer Attorneys of California, Amicus Council 

Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, Board Member 

San Diego Appellate Inn of Court

American Association for Justice 

San Diego County Bar Association

News

Bloomberg Law: Uber Drivers Liable For Safety When Passengers Exit Vehicle

Speaking Engagements

Press Releases

Multimedia