Balistreri v. Balistreri, S273909.
#22-130 Balistreri v. Balistreri, S273909. (A162222; 75 Cal.App.5th 511; San Francisco County Superior Court; PTR20303610.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a probate proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Haggerty v. Thornton, S271483 (#21-562), which presents
Ruelas v. County of Alameda, S277120.
#23-2 Ruelas v. County of Alameda, S277120. (9th Cir. No. 21-16528; 51 F.4th 1187; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the
Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County, S283978.
#24-71 Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County, S283978. (B325277; 98 Cal.App.5th 1119; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; VENCI00546574.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following
Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, S283639.
#24-64 Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, S283639. (C095446; 98 Cal.App.5th 95; Yuba County Superior Court; CVPO2100697.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the plaintiffs’ second voluntary
Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., S283614.
#24-63 Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., S283614. (A167721; 98 Cal.App.5th 20, mod. 98 Cal.App.5th 659e; Public Utilities Commission; 2212056.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of the Public Utilities Commission. This case presents the following issues:
Winick v. Noble LA Events, S273374.
#22-117 Winick v. Noble LA Events, S273374. (B305697; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC569126.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, S273368
Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, S276545.
#22-289 Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, S276545. (B312967; 82 Cal.App.5th 365; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV26536.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does
Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., S275431.
#22-240 Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., S275431. (9th Circ. No. 21-16201; 39 F.4th 1176; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the
Gutierrez v. Tostado, S283128.
#24-59 Gutierrez v. Tostado, S283128. (H049983; 97 Cal.App.5th 786; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 20CV361400.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the one-year statute of limitations in the Medical
Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, S266034.
#21-50 Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, S266034. (B293960; 56 Cal.App.5th 1052; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC638010.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the statutory restitution
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 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.