Angeli C. Aragon

Overview

Angeli Aragon focuses her practice on defending the rights of employers faced with labor and employment disputes and litigation. She provides effective defenses across a variety of employment matters, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, and wage and hour claims. Angeli also provides litigation defense involving trade secrets, breach of contract, fraud, defamation, right of publicity, and unfair competition.

Angeli litigates single and multi-plaintiff claims, class actions, and other complex lawsuits before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. She also handles appeals and writs through legal briefs and oral argument before the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, clients turn to Angeli for her legal insights into making employment-related risk management decisions, as well as for conducting internal investigations – especially those that require discretion and diplomacy.

Beyond her impressive credentials lies Angeli's ability to transform contentious employment disputes into strategic opportunities. She views dispute resolution and litigation as a complex puzzle where each motion and argument serves a larger purpose. Clients value her blend of intellectual precision and psychological insights. Angeli understands not only the law and procedure but also its real-world application and the dynamics that often drive workplace conflicts. Angeli attempts to search for unexplored pathways to resolution when conventional approaches fail.

Experience

• EpicentRx v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2025) 18 Cal. 5th 58, representing Defendant/Appellant EpicentRx: the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in favor of Defendant/Appellant EpicentRx, reversing the lower court rulings and upholding a Delaware forum selection clause in the corporation’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws as enforceable, even though litigation in Delaware’s Court of Chancery would deprive the plaintiff of a civil jury trial, and also awarded Defendant/Appellant EpicentRx with costs on appeal
• Campbell v. Career Development Institute, Inc. (October 23, 2024, L.A.S.C. Case No. 21STCP00003), representing Defendant/Respondent Career Development Institute, Inc. (CDI): after the Court of Appeal remanded the Plaintiff/Petitioner’s appeal back to the Los Angeles Superior Court in light of the recent decision of Boermeester v. Carry, the Los Angeles Superior Court ultimately issued judgment in favor of Defendant/Respondent CDI and denied Plaintiff/Petitioner Campbell’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus (which sought to set aside Defendant/Respondent CDI’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff/Petitioner Campbell), and also awarded Defendant/Respondent CDI with costs of suit
• Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC (2024) 98 Cal. App. 5th 819, representing Defendant/Respondent Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC – The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling awarding costs, including costs of depositions and service of process, to Defendant/Respondent Tempur-Pedic as the prevailing party, and also awarded Defendant/Respondent Tempur-Pedic with costs on appeal.
• Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1232, representing the San Francisco Bar Association and the Beverly Hills Bar Association as Amici Curiae with Defendants/Appellants: the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in favor of Defendants/Appellants and Amici Curiae, including the San Francisco Bar Association and the Beverly Hills Bar Association, reversing the lower court rulings and concluding that just as in litigation malpractice actions, a plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action must show that but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result
• Harris v. Rudin Richman Appel (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4^th 1332, representing Plaintiff/Respondent Harris: the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent because the Defendants/Appellants raised triable issues of fact on summary judgment, but affirmed the award of sanctions in favor of Plaintiff/Respondent Harris against the Defendants/Appellants under Section 128.5 as constituting bad faith
• California High Court Unanimously Sides With CA Team In Commercially Vital Forum Selection Clause

Speeches

Speeches

• Speaker, “Wage Law Compliance 2013: Is There an App for That?” Montage Insurance Solutions, My HR Summit, Woodland Hills, California, April 2013
• Speaker, “Top Tips for Preventing Harassment in the Workplace,” Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP national webinar, October 2012
• Speaker, “Best Practices in Managing the ADA & FMLA,” Council on Education in Management’s Certificate Program in FMLA & ADA Compliance & Best Practice, June 2010

Professional

• Advisory Board Member and General Member, Philippine American Bar Association (PABA)
  • President, 2010 - 2011
• Member, Amicus Brief Committee, Los Angeles County Bar Association
• Member, National Association Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA)
• Member, Asian Pacific American Bar Association (APABA)
• Member, Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)
• Member, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (WLA)
• Member, Professionals in Human Resources Association (PIHRA)