#24-19 Escamilla v. Vannucci, S282866. (A166176; 97 Cal.App.5th 175; Alameda County Superior Court; RG21111193.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: What statute of limitations
#22-245 Gerro v. Blockfi Lending, S275530. (B307156, B312647; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV31493.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the
#22-170 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340. (G058397, G058969; 76 Cal.App.5th 685; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2013-00692890.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the
#23-260 Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club, S282264. (B315302; 95 Cal.App.5th 240; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 19STCV22806.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May a maritime worker described by
#23-256 Lockton Companies v. Superior Court, S282136. (B328408; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 22STCV39876.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, S282521
#23-247 EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, S282521. (D081670; 95 Cal.App.5th 890, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 1320a; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2022-00015228-CUBT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a civil action. This case presents the following
#23-246 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S282013. (E079076; 94 Cal.App.5th 464; Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board; ADJ1360597.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled and remanded the decision in a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board proceeding. This case presents
#23-243 In re. L.J., S282333. (E080296; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; J287021.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a juvenile dependency proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in In re Ja.O., S280572 (#23-153), which presents
#23-232 Yeh v. Superior Court, S282228. (A166537; 95 Cal.App.5th 264; Contra Costa County Superior Court; MSC2200170.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Ford Motor
#23-222 In re Ashton C., S282099. (E079831; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIJ2000558.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding. Petition for review granted; briefing deferred: 11/15/2023 Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration
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.
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.