VCARD
Biography
Few appellate specialists have ever examined a witness, much less litigated multiple trials and arbitrations. Robin Meadow did all of these things for over 20 years at a major commercial firm, while also handling all of the firm’s appellate work. He joined GMSR when he decided to limit his practice to civil appeals.
Robin’s trial court experience gives him a unique perspective on appellate work. He understands the demands and pressures trial lawyers face and the countless ways things can go wrong at trial. He’s very much at home consulting with trial lawyers during trial and in the post-trial phase, helping them protect their appellate record so they’re well positioned to preserve a victory or challenge a defeat.
Robin’s practice at GMSR continues the substantive focus he developed in his earlier years—business disputes, real estate, partnerships, probate and entertainment. But, like most appellate lawyers, he’s a generalist. At GMSR, he has also handled significant appeals involving healthcare, family law, personal injury and bankruptcy.
When he isn’t practicing law, Robin enjoys spending time with his family, reading about history, and playing bass guitar.
Honors
A California Lawyer of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine (2016)
Los Angeles County Bar Association Pamela E. Dunn Appellate Justice Award (2014)
Best Lawyers’ Los Angeles Appellate Practice “Lawyer of the Year” (2013, 2018, 2024)
Southern California Super Lawyers, Appellate (2004 – Present)
Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers (2006, 2012 – 2016)
Named in The Best Lawyers in America® (Appellate Law, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Trusts and Estates) (2006 – Present)
Named in Chambers and Partners USA as a Band 1 Appellate Litigator
A California Lawyer of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine (2016)
Los Angeles County Bar Association Pamela E. Dunn Appellate Justice Award (2014)
Best Lawyers’ Los Angeles Appellate Practice “Lawyer of the Year” (2013, 2018, 2024)
Southern California Super Lawyers, Appellate (2004 – Present)
Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers (2006, 2012 – 2016)
Named in The Best Lawyers in America® (Appellate Law, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Trusts and Estates) (2006 – Present)
Named in Chambers and Partners USA as a Band 1 Appellate Litigator
High-Impact Wins
Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12
Clarifies existing law involving 99-year term limits governing city-lot leases
Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12
Clarifies existing law involving 99-year term limits governing city-lot leases
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed the history of lease term limitations in California, predecessor limitations in New York, and similar limits in English common law. The court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s rulings enforcing the ground lease of a prime Beverly Hills commercial property through 2102 and awarding restitution. The court also agreed with GMSR’s argument that the trial court had authority to award interest on the restitution award and reversed its contrary order.
Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054
Clarifies existing law governing LLC members’ right to dissolve the LLC of which they are members, over the objection of other members
Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054
Clarifies existing law governing LLC members’ right to dissolve the LLC of which they are members, over the objection of other members
In a published opinion, the court held that, under the plain language of the Corporations Code, an LLC “is dissolved” upon the first of either a vote of 50% of the LLC’s membership interests or entry of a decree of judicial dissolution. Though a suit for judicial dissolution was pending, nothing in the statute prevented GMSR’s clients from pursuing the alternative voluntary dissolution by member vote.
Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657
Comprehensive examination of when and how a court can apply issue preclusion notwithstanding the settlement of prior litigation
Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657
Comprehensive examination of when and how a court can apply issue preclusion notwithstanding the settlement of prior litigation
A rogue employee of a title company promoted a Ponzi scheme in which she obtained investments from the appellant, a real estate entrepreneur whom she knew from handling his escrow business. A title company obtained summary judgment on the basis of the appellant’s unclean hands. The title company hired GMSR to defend the summary judgment on appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the prior judgment was sufficiently final to be preclusive despite having been vacated; that claimed errors in the prior judgment did not limit its preclusive effect; and that the appellant had forfeited many of his arguments either by not urging them at all in the trial court or by not adequately supporting them on appeal.
In re Castlepoint National Ins. Co. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 668
Extent to which orders in insurance company liquidation barred claims against the company’s principals
In re Castlepoint National Ins. Co. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 668
Extent to which orders in insurance company liquidation barred claims against the company’s principals
A group of New York investment companies turned to GMSR when a California trial court—citing agreements and injunctions in a prior insurance company liquidation—barred most of their $200 million New York lawsuit from proceeding. Facing off against both the California Insurance Commissioner and the New York defendants, GMSR persuaded the Court of Appeal that the most important New York claims did not violate the agreements or injunctions. In a published decision, the Court of Appeal agreed that those claims could proceed.
Southern California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1
Analysis of what constitutes an equitable servitude and when it can be enforced
Southern California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1
Analysis of what constitutes an equitable servitude and when it can be enforced
In a unanimous published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, that limited the Colleges’ right to repurchase property under a decades-old contract. The court held that the repurchase right is a fully enforceable equitable servitude and that trial court erred in invoking the forfeiture doctrine to rewrite that servitude.
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019, B281210) 2019 WL 1395963
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019, B281210) 2019 WL 1395963
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding. The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans. The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury. The principal issue on appeal was whether the trial court had erred in denying a jury trial and, if so, what the relief should be. The court accepted GMSR’s arguments that California law governed the jury waiver- because New York’s more permissive law was contrary to fundamental California policy. It also agreed that denial of a jury trial was a structural error and therefore reversible per se as to all of the clients’ claims, even equitable issues as to which they had no right to a jury.
Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
California Supreme Court allows reformation of wills, overturning centuries of precedent
Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
California Supreme Court allows reformation of wills, overturning centuries of precedent
Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that persuaded the California Supreme Court to allow reformation of wills based on extrinsic evidence—overturning a principle of will interpretation that dated back nearly 500 years to the first Act of Wills. In doing so, the Court aligned California with modern academic and judicial thinking on how best to determine testators’ intent.
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 508
Employees of private companies urging retaliation claims need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 508
Employees of private companies urging retaliation claims need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing
Holding that a new statute covered cases filed before it was enacted, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 98.7 does not require an employee to exhaust that statute’s administrative remedies before filing suit on a claim for retaliation against a private employer.
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329
Court establishes procedure for enforcing attorney liens against decedents’ estates
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329
Court establishes procedure for enforcing attorney liens against decedents’ estates
In this first-impression case, the Court of Appeal harmonized some apparently conflicting laws and ruled that the holder of an attorney lien need not file a creditor’s claim in the probate estate of the deceased client.
Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123
Court articulates new criteria for evaluating whether a defendant’s conduct creates a nuisance
Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123
Court articulates new criteria for evaluating whether a defendant’s conduct creates a nuisance
Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that persuaded the Court of Appeal that existing CACI nuisance instructions did not adequately express the factors that Supreme Court precedent required juries to consider. The court articulated new criteria that have since been embodied in a CACI jury instructions.
Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721
$300 million “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” verdict against Disney affirmed
Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721
$300 million “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” verdict against Disney affirmed
Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that obtained affirmance of $320 million contract judgment against Disney arising out of Disney’s refusal to pay profits owed on the wildly successful “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” program.
Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873
Court rejects claim that a lease allowed perpetual renewals
Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873
Court rejects claim that a lease allowed perpetual renewals
Reviewing case law from throughout the United States, the Court of Appeal concluded that the law disfavors perpetual leases; that perpetual rights must be explicitly stated; and that a renewal clause that is ambiguous as to the number of renewals confers only a single right of renewal.
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486
Made new law regarding the application of alter ego liability
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486
Made new law regarding the application of alter ego liability
The Court of Appeal held that (1) a judgment can be amended to add alter ego judgment debtors even where that alter ego prevailed on unrelated claims in an underlying arbitration and (2) alter ego liability applies equally to trustees of a trust.
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.