Terry Anastassiou

Terry Anastassiou: Attorney with Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation
Attorney Awards

Biography

EXPERIENCE

Mr. Anastassiou is certified as an appellate specialist by the State Bar of California’s Board of Legal Specialization, and his work is focused in appeals and writs in State and Federal courts. He has elicited published decisions in the areas of statutory and regulatory interpretation, evidentiary privileges, and professional responsibility in the context of toxic torts. His practice also includes civil rights, partnership dissolution, public entity liability, employer liability for employee torts, insurance law, intellectual property, and transactional and employment law and litigation. In addition to admission to all California courts, he is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Anastassiou is a contributing author to Continuing Education of the Bar’s treatises on Civil Writs and Insurance Litigation and has published articles on appellate procedure, contractual arbitration, the use of special masters in complex litigation, and enforceable arbitration agreements in the context of consumer and business liability coverage. In addition to having been a regular faculty member for Continuing Education of the Bar’s annual seminar on developments in California tort law, he has also presented seminars on writ procedure, legal writing and pretrial motion practice, and taught legal writing at Hastings College of the Law.

A native of New York, Mr. Anastassiou received his undergraduate degree from George Washington University and his law degree from Santa Clara University School of Law. Prior to joining Ropers, he worked as a researcher for Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Systems, Inc. and as a legal research attorney for the San Mateo County Superior Court.

Publications

•At Writs End
Daily Journal - April 7, 2008
Terry Anastassiou
•Binding Arbitration of Coverage and Bad Faith Disputes:A Way Out Of the Thicket for the American Insurance Industry January 1, 2001
Terry Anastassiou , Michael J. Brady
I.

Introduction
This article sets forth a unique and intriguing idea: can an insurer insert a requirement in its policy that all disputes concerning coverage or bad faith be submitted to binding arbitration, and providing further that in the event the arbitrator awards punitive damages, they be capped at no more than three times the amount of the compensatory award?

In the past thirty years at least ten states have witnessed huge (and often unwarranted) jury verdicts against insurers for bad faith and punitive damages.
•You Know it is a Tax Scam When ...
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - April 15, 2005
Terry Anastassiou

Publications

•At Writs End
Daily Journal - April 7, 2008
Terry Anastassiou
•You Know it is a Tax Scam When ...
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - April 15, 2005
Terry Anastassiou
•Binding Arbitration of Coverage and Bad Faith Disputes:A Way Out Of the Thicket for the American Insurance Industry January 1, 2001
Terry Anastassiou, Michael J. Brady
I.

Introduction
This article sets forth a unique and intriguing idea: can an insurer insert a requirement in its policy that all disputes concerning coverage or bad faith be submitted to binding arbitration, and providing further that in the event the arbitrator awards punitive damages, they be capped at no more than three times the amount of the compensatory award?

In the past thirty years at least ten states have witnessed huge (and often unwarranted) jury verdicts against insurers for bad faith and punitive damages.

Areas of Practice (2)

  • Appellate
  • Insurance

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
415-972-6341  Phone
415-972-6301  Fax
www.rmkb.com
University Attended:
George Washington University, B.A., 1983
Law School Attended:
Santa Clara University School of Law, J.D., 1991
Year of First Admission:
1992
Admission:
USDC: Northern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; USDC: Eastern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; USDC: Central District of California; USDC: Southern District of California; 1992, California; Supreme Court of the United States
Memberships:

MEMBERSHIPS & ASSOCIATIONS

•Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF)
•State Bar of California

Reported Cases:
Representative Experience: Fraudulent transfer, fraudulent conveyance, non-vessel operating common carrier, NVOCC, assets, receivables; U.S. District Court, Central District of California; Defendant, Non-vessel Operating Common Carrier; Business And Commercial Litigation, Maritime and Multimodal Transportation; The plaintiff was a longshoreman who was injured at a commercial maritime facility in Southern California. The plaintiff brought a personal injury action against four entities allegedly at fault for the incident, including our client (a United States common freight carrier) and a Malaysian entity also engaged in the business of international shipping. The plaintiff dismissed our client and several other defendants from the personal injury litigation, and later obtained a multi-million dollar default judgment against the Malaysian entity as the sole remaining defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced federal litigation against our client, alleging that our client was the Malaysian entity's alter ego, or alternatively, had received fraudulent conveyances of money and/or receivables from the Malaysian entity that should have been turned over to plaintiff to satisfy the default judgment.; We promptly sought and obtained a court order staying the litigation and all discovery, pending resolution of an appeal by the Malaysian entity challenging the validity of the underlying default judgment (upon which the new federal action against our client was based). When the stay expired, we successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for alter ego as legally untenable, leaving only plaintiff's causes of action alleging fraudulent conveyance. Plaintiff thereafter directed substantial discovery demands and motion practice to our client which were patently designed to coerce a prompt settlement. We successfully limited the scope of permissible discovery and opposed plaintiff's other motions, ultimately securing sanctions against plaintiff for procedural and discovery abuse. Shortly afterwards, we obtained summary judgment for our client upon the plaintiff's remaining claims, completely resolving the litigation in our client's favor.; Statutory interpretation, medical malpractice; California Supreme Court; Public hospital; Appellate, Medical Malpractice; Appeal of judgment on jury verdict in month-long trial of medical malpractice action. Issues on review included statutory analysis of Evidence Code provisions regarding peer review confidentiality.; Judgment for client affirmed in Sixth Appellate District and California Supreme Court.; Fox v. Kramer (2000) 22 Cal.4th 531; Employer-employee relations; unfair competition; California Court of Appeal; Defendant Electronics Manufacturer; Appellate; Competitor sued client to stop alleged poaching of employees, dismissed lawsuit when trial court found no evidence to support issuance of injunction. Trial court found lawsuit objectively specious and awarded client attorney fees.; Judgment for attorney fees affirmed.; Cypress Semiconductor v. Maxim Int'd Prods. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 243.; Statutory interpretation, commercial distribution law; California Court of Appeal; International beer company; Appellate; Client's petition for writ of mandate from order denying summary judgment to client defendant, a beer importer who was sued after declining to permit a distributor to obtain additional territory.; Denial of motion reversed and judgment entered for client.; Crown Beverages v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1395; Insurance law; California Court of Appeal; Liability insurer; Appellate; Plaintiff's appeal of judgment for client insurer in suit to recover cost of settling tenant suit against plaintiff landlords. Trial court found that landlords' deliberate acts and failures were barred from coverage by Insurance Code 533.; Judgment for client affirmed.; Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. Reinoso (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 181; Statutory interpretation, licensing law; California Court of Appeal; Owner-operator of general contractor company; Appellate; Client's appeal of summary judgment granted based on trivial paperwork inconsistencies in licensing documents.; Summary judgment reversed and matter remanded for trial.; Montgomery-Sansome v. Rezai (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 786; Anti-SLAPP law, Prop. 65; California Court of Appeal; Private individual; Appellate; Appeal of client's successful special motion to strike company's complaint for declaratory relief filed in reaction to service of Prop 65 notice regarding toxic chemicals in processed food.; Judgment for client affirmed in decision rejecting preemptive use of declaratory relief in Prop. 65 actions.; CKE Restaurants v. Moore (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 262; Anti-SLAPP law, Defamation; California Court of Appeal; Non-profit anti-bigotry advocacy group; Appellate; Appeal of order striking plaintiff's defamation suit against client nonprofit advocacy group who reported issues with administration of charter school.; Judgment for client affirmed in decision clarifying application of public official status to public school administrators.; Ghafur v. Bernstein (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1230; Statutory interpretation, negligence; California Court of Appeal; Homeowner; Appellate; Appeal of trial court dismissal of engineer malpractice action for purported failure to satisfy statutory requirement of certificate of merit.; Judgment against client reversed in decision that clarifies litigant's entitlement under concepts of due process to file amended certificate.; Price v. Dames & Moore (92 Cal.App.4th 355); Statutory interpretation, construction defect; California Court of Appeal; Non-Profit Group; Appellate, Catastrophic/Personal Injury; Appeal of judgment on jury defense verdict for client in suit by man who drowned in health club hot tub. Issues included detailed statutory and regulatory analysis and causation in context of stipulated negligence per se.; Judgment for client affirmed in published decision clarifying applicable regulations.; Andres v. Mid-Peninsula YMCA (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 85; Due Process and Eighth Amendment Protection; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; County Clinic; Appellate; Ninth Circuit appeal of judgment in favor of client and against plaintiff sheriff-sergeant who sued after she was involuntarily committed for observation in mental health facility. Issues included due process, Eighth Amendment and interpretation of statutory scheme.; Judgment for client affirmed.; Carlson v. San Mateo County (1996 U.S.App.LEXIS 32764); Mass Tort, Water Quality; California Court of Appeal; Water Districts; Appellate, Toxic Tort; Mass tort plaintiffs' appeal of trial court ruling dismissing claims against client water districts based on isolated and transient issues with tap water.; Judgment for client affirmed in decision clarifying of what constitutes mandatory duty for purposes of Government Code, section 815.6.; Abarca Group v. So.Cal. Water Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659
ISLN:
900861299

Peer Reviews

5.0/5.0 (1 review)
Peer Reviewed
  • Legal Knowledge

    5.0/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    5.0/5.0
  • Judgment

    5.0/5.0
  • Communication

    5.0/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    5.0/5.0

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

San Francisco, California

Contact Terry Anastassiou

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.