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.
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
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
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
© 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.