Cases

GMSR has an enviable record of success on appeal. For your convenience, the firm has provided a simple search tool for guests and clients to search that record.

14 Case Results
Filter

LSI Corporation v. Gunnam et al. (May 22, 2023, H049521, H049523) 2023 WL 3577288

GMSR secures reversal of anti-SLAPP dismissal on the basis of circumstantial evidence

2022

Hiraishi v. DeLeon et al. (Mar. 14, 2022, B310395) 2022 WL 761930

Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of employment harassment suit against GMSR’s clients

Begley v. Delta Dental of California (Aug. 31, 2021, A159983) 2021 WL 3878844

Court affirms summary judgment for GMSR’s client on employment discrimination claims

Slaight v. Tata Consultancy Services (9th Cir. 2021) 842 Fed.Appx. 66

GMSR wins Ninth Circuit affirmance in closely watched Title VII class action

Lopez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Dec. 14, 2020, B296598) 2020 WL 7332045

GMSR wins affirmance of summary judgment for employer on disability discrimination claims

Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 82

GMSR wins reversal for client community college of adverse $3.4 million FEHA judgment

Pryor et al. v. Fitness International, LLC (Jan. 3, 2019, B287329) 2019 WL 92775

Employer owes no duty to the general public to keep drug-addled employee at work through the end of his shift or to prevent him from driving intoxicated after being told to leave the premises

Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676

Court of Appeal reverses $13.9 million jury award and orders entry of defense judgment for GMSR’s client in employee commuting case

Smith v. Farmers Group, Inc. (May 14, 2018, B266242) 2018 WL 2192426

Defendants were not collaterally estopped from asserting plaintiff’s independent-contractor status

2012

Long v. County of Los Angeles (Oct. 30, 2012, No. B229173) 2012 WL 5335311 [nonpublished opinion]

Plaintiff, a former employee of GMSR’s client, County of Los Angeles, sought reimbursement of attorney’s fees he allegedly incurred in assisting in the County’s defense of litigation. The trial court found that he was required to comply with the Claims Act and failed to do