Edward L. Xanders (Ted)
VCARD
Biography
Ted Xanders is a Co-Managing Partner of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland. For over almost three decades, he has helped trial counsel, corporate counsel, individuals, and insurers in both trial and appellate courts. His services include preparing summary judgment and post-judgment motions, monitoring trials, and ultimately preparing successful appellate briefs.
Ted has successfully represented clients in appeals and writs that span the legal spectrum, including administrative law, antitrust, bankruptcy, business contract and tort, employment, entertainment, family law and leave, government tort liability, immigration, insurance, legal and medical malpractice, personal injury, products liability, real property, and unfair business practices. He joined the team of appellate lawyers at GMSR in 1997, after seven years as a business litigator with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
He is a member of the election-only California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and he is on the Board of Directors and Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee for the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC). He received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1989, where he was a finalist in the William Minor Lile appellate moot court competition, received the Johnson & Swanson award for appellate advocacy, and was Notes Editor for the Journal of Law & Politics. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree (Political Science) magna cum laude from Duke University in 1985. Ted is an avid world traveler, backpacker, and photographer, and has visited nearly fifty countries.
High-Impact Wins
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Reversal of $13.9 million jury award with directions for entry of defense judgment
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Reversal of $13.9 million jury award with directions for entry of defense judgment
Mr. Xanders persuaded the California Court of Appeal to reverse a $13.9 million jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff injured in a car accident with a deputy public defender who was on his way home from work. In an important published decision regarding the “going and coming” rule, the Court of Appeal held there was insufficient evidence that on the day of the accident the employer benefitted from the car’s use or required the employee to commute in his car.
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149
Reversal of ADA preemption ruling precluding city’s contribution claims
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149
Reversal of ADA preemption ruling precluding city’s contribution claims
In a landmark preemption decision that will benefit municipalities across the country, Mr. Xanders persuaded the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s ruling that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act preempted a municipality’s state law claims for breach of contract and express indemnity against the contractors who designed and built the deficient public facility.
Corona Summit LLC v. SPUSO5 Corona Summit, L.P. (June 27, 2013, B226933) 2013 WL 3286181
Reversal of $79 million judgment against commercial real estate buyer.
Corona Summit LLC v. SPUSO5 Corona Summit, L.P. (June 27, 2013, B226933) 2013 WL 3286181
Reversal of $79 million judgment against commercial real estate buyer.
Mr. Xanders persuaded the Court of Appeal to reverse a $79 million judgment (and a related attorney fee award) against a commercial real estate buyer and to remand with instructions for entry of a judgment limited to $13 million in liquidated damages. The case involved a bench trial on complicated real estate breach-of-contract and specific-performance issues.
Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298
Reversal of non-suit and affirmance of jury award, establishing groundbreaking movie-royalty precedent.
Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298
Reversal of non-suit and affirmance of jury award, establishing groundbreaking movie-royalty precedent.
Mr. Xanders, along with Robert Olson, obtained affirmance of a multi-million dollar licensing-fee judgment in favor of a well-known film producer. The appellate court’s published decision holds that a movie studio unfairly allocated licensing fees by engaging in an industry practice known as “straight lining.” In an across-the-board win for the producer, the court also (in an unpublished portion) reversed a non-suit on the producer’s fraud and other claims and remanded those matters for trial.
Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109
Reversal of summary judgment, establishing statewide real property precedent.
Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109
Reversal of summary judgment, establishing statewide real property precedent.
The Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment against realtors, relying primarily on arguments in Mr. Xanders’ amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of a realtors’ association. The published decision holds that real estate brokers sued by home buyers for failing to disclose material defects can file indemnity cross-claims against home inspectors for their proportionate fault.
DeCuir v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 75
Reversal of jury verdict, establishing statewide precedent limiting suits against public entities.
DeCuir v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 75
Reversal of jury verdict, establishing statewide precedent limiting suits against public entities.
Mr. Xanders persuaded the Court of Appeal to reverse a jury award against a municipality with directions to enter judgment in the municipality’s favor. The published decision holds that unsuccessful applicants for civil service positions can challenge the proceedings only in ordinary mandamus, not civil suits.
Publications
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.