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.
B.Q. v. Mesa Union School Dist. (Dec. 2, 2020, No. B303351) 2020 WL 7052293
GMSR wins second appeal relating to student’s discrimination claim against school district
Corona v. City of Riverside (Oct. 22, 2019, D075558) 2019 WL 5387287
Court of Appeal affirms judgment of nonsuit in favor of GMSR’s client
Easley v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2018) 890 F.3d 851
Ninth Circuit affirms qualified immunity for GMSR’s police officer client
Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water District (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1198
Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of nuisance and inverse condemnation claims against GMSR’s water district client
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149
This landmark preemption decision will benefit municipalities across the country. Two disabled persons sued GMSR’s client, the City of Los Angeles, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RHA), alleging that a bus facility was
Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282
California Supreme Court rules in favor of GMSR’s client in holding that attorney invoices in pending legal matters are completely protected by the attorney-client privilege
Heltebrake v. City of Riverside (Dec. 29, 2015, B254132) 2015 WL 9487660
GMSR wins dismissal of lawsuit claiming entitlement to a reward
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
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
Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197
Case challenging the procedures for revoking a charter school’s charter; decision clarifies the standards governing charter school revocation proceedings
© 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.