Kevin H. Louth is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Manning & Kass. Mr. Louth is a member of the firm’s Strategy, Writs and Appeals Team.
Mr. Louth received his undergraduate degree from California State University, Northridge (BA 1976) and his JD from Pepperdine University School of Law (1983). While at Pepperdine, Mr. Louth received the Best Brief-Petitioner award in the Vincent S. Dalsimer Moot Court Competition in 1982, served as chairman of the Pepperdine Moot Court Board throughout the 1982–1983 academic year, and was on the Dean’s List for academic achievement.
Mr. Louth is admitted to the State Bar of California (1983), all of the federal district courts in California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court. He has argued cases in California state appellate courts and the Ninth Circuit.
Throughout his legal career, Mr. Louth has concentrated his practice on law and motion and appellate law in state and federal courts. Prior to joining Manning & Kass in 2004, Mr. Louth worked for the law and motion and appellate department of several major Los Angeles civil defense firms.
Mr. Louth’s published decisions include Greathouse v. Amcord, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 831 (allocation of settlement proceeds under Proposition 51 for offset is to be based upon the jury’s allocation in their verdict and not a pretrial allocation by the settling parties in their settlement agreement), Kates v. Workmen’s Auto Insurance Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 494 (Insurance Code section 660(e) does not extend a policy period where a lapse or suspension in coverage results from the insured’s failure to accept an offer of renewal from the insurer prior to expiration of the insurance policy), Hickman v. City of San Fernando (1994) 81 F.3d 98 (constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of an individual’s application for a concealed weapons permit), Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128 (counsel seeking court permission to withdraw from the representation of a client due to a conflict of interest must provide the trial court with some details as to the nature of the conflict), Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407 (the mediation privilege for writings under Evidence Code section 1119 is absolute), County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Gavira) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 8 (records of organized medical peer review committees are exempt from discovery in a civil action under Evidence Code section 1157, and this exemption extends to quality assurance committees of county-operated mental health facilities under Evidence Code section 1157.6), Nguyen v. Tran (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1032 (cooperating brokers could not compel arbitration against listing brokers who did not sign the real estate purchase agreement, and who did not have a preexisting confidential or contractual relationship with the cooperating brokers), and Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133 (claimant’s trade secret designation was sufficient to meet the reasonable particularity standard of Code of Civil Procedure §2019.210).