Gerald M. Serlin

As a founding partner of Benedon & Serlin LLP, a premier Southern California appellate boutique law firm, Gerald Serlin is a distinguished appellate attorney with almost four decades of experience. He specializes in all aspects of civil appellate litigation and has particular expertise in conducting matters involving employment, civil rights, contracts, torts, arbitration, and anti-SLAPP.

As a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law, Gerald has actively been involved as a Settlement Officer for the California Court of Appeal, and is an active member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the San Fernando Valley Bar Association, the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, and the California Employment Lawyers Association.  Gerald has also consistently been recognized in the Appellate field by Southern California Super Lawyers since 2004 and Best Lawyers in America since 2016.

Specific examples of cases handled by Gerald include the following:

- Homeowners brought a civil rights action against police officers, alleging the entry into their home violated the Fourth Amendment.  The district court ruled the officers were entitled to qualified immunity but the Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, finding that two officers did not reasonably believe safety concerns justified a warrantless entry.  Granting certiorari, the Supreme Court found the officers had a reasonable basis for fearing that violence was imminent, which entitled them to qualified immunity.

- The testator prepared a holographic will that failed to account for the circumstance in which he survived his younger wife. Upon the testator’s death, his estate passed by intestate succession to his nephews rather than to two charities he favored. Judgment was entered for the nephews and the charities, represented by B&S, appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, which excluded extrinsic evidence of the testator’s actual intent. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that an unambiguous will may be reformed if clear and convincing evidence establishes both that the will contained a mistake in the expression of the testator's intent when the will was drafted and the testator's actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted. The case was remanded to allow the client charities to present evidence of the testator’s intent.

- Bezdikian, a partner of Manco, a Qatari construction company, embezzled funds. Manco filed suit in Qatar and obtained a multimillion-riyal judgment against Bezdikian, which was amended and affirmed by a Qatari appellate court. After Bezdikian fled to Beverly Hills, Manco moved to domesticate the Qatari judgment in California under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgment Recognition Act, but the California Superior Court found the action barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In both the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, B&S successfully argued that Manco’s action was not barred because the cause of action had not accrued until after the Qatari appellate court had issued its amended judgment. On remand, Manco’s action proceeded to trial.