Phone: (415) 649-6700 ext. 12
Charles Kagay has decades of appellate experience in both California and federal courts. He frequently handles appeals involving complex or novel legal questions, and his cases have addressed first-impression questions of civil procedure and statutory interpretation, including issues related to antitrust law, administrative law, physician credentialing, and anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motions. He also handles trial court actions of an appellate nature, such as petitions for writs of administrative mandamus and bankruptcy appeals.
Charles has been certified as California appellate specialist by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California for the past 14 years. He has been selected ten times as a “Northern California SuperLawyer” in appellate law, and he has both a peer rating and client rating of 5 out of 5 from Martindale-Hubbell.
Previously, Charles served as Chief Appellate Counsel in two Independent Counsel probes of cabinet-level officials in Washington, D.C., and as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California. He is a past member of the State Bar of California’s Committee on Appellate Courts, Committee on the Administration of Justice, and Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section’s Executive Committee.
Charles earned his undergraduate degree, his graduate degree in public policy, and his law degree from Harvard University.
Some of Charles’s recent successes include:
Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, which established that a petition for writ of administrative mandate cannot generally be characterized as a SLAPP action.
Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital and Medical Center (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259, a California Supreme Court decision that established a hearing officer in a hospital administrative proceeding lacks authority to dismiss a case on his or her own initiative.
UAS Management, Inc., v. Mater Misericordiae Hospital (2008) 169 Cal. App.4th 357, a major, multi-million dollar decision that reversed a summary judgment and created new law regarding reconsideration motions in the context of antitrust lawsuits related to unlawful tying arrangements in the hospital industry.
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 183, an important California Supreme Court ruling that established the parameters of the unfairness prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
In re Sealed Case (D.C. Cir. 1997) 121 F.3d 729, which overturned a trial court decision denying on executive privilege grounds a motion to compel enforcement of a grand jury subpoena duces tecum served on White House Counsel.