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.
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 508
Reversing a defense judgment, the Court of Appeal holds that Labor Code section 98.7 does not require an employee to exhaust that statute’s administrative remedies before filing suit
In re Marriage of Ziman (Oct. 16, 2015, B252042) 2015 WL 6122259 [nonpublished opinion]
Husband, GMSR’s client, entered the marriage with $16 million in separate property investments. The couple spent the first six years of the marriage living primarily off Husband’s separate property, acting as philanthropists and incurring annual community-property deficits of between $250,000 and $500,000. In the meantime,
Regents of the University of Cal. v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1296
GMSR obtains writ directing summary judgment in favor of UCLA in student’s negligence lawsuit
21st Century Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 322
Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. He sued the insured. The carrier, GMSR’s client, defended under a $100,000 limits policy. The plaintiff and the insured claimed that two other policies with $25,000 limits each also provided coverage. The plaintiff refused the carrier’s offer of
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899
California Supreme Court upholds the enforcement of a standard arbitration provision in auto dealers’ sales contracts
Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
California Supreme Court fundamentally alters probate law
Perez v. Wiesand (May 12, 2015, B251199) 2015 WL 2250495 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal reverses quiet title summary judgment against GMSR’s client
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329
Court of Appeal reverses probate court order dismissing GMSR’s client’s petition for failure to file a creditor’s claim
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1154
Court of Appeal holds that that attorney bills transmitted to clients are confidential communications protected by the attorney client privilege
Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123
Court of Appeal reverses $4 million emotional distress judgment
© 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.