#24-76 Lockton Investment Advisors v. Superior Court, S283963. (B334130; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 22STCV23460.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. Petition for review granted; briefing deferred: 4/24/2024 Further action in this matter is
#24-75 Lockton Companies, LLC – Pacific Series v. Superior Court, S283932. (B334428; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 23STCV24107.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. Petition for review granted; briefing deferred: 4/24/2024 Further action in
#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
#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
#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
#24-65 Agnone v. Agnone, S284051. (B321252; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BD659645.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, S277211
#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
#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:
#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
#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
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.