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.
Gordon v. Kawamoto (Apr. 9, 2010, B211948) 2010 WL 1408986 [nonpublished opinion]
Injuries suffered allegedly as a result of surgery at UCSD in November 2003 following a dune buggy accident. Action filed in April 2007 was for injuries suffered during subsequent surgeries by a different doctor in 2004 and 2005. In July 2007, plaintiff attempted to add
Jackson v. San Leandro Hospital (Mar. 24, 2010, A126400) 2010 WL 1058652
Plaintiff suffered injuries suffered allegedly as a result of IV Dilantin administered to her for seizures. Defense introduced expert testimony that nothing the hospital did breached the standard of care or caused harm to the plaintiff. Plaintiff introduced no expert testimony to the contrary. The
Banks v. Pacific Homes Foundation (Mar. 18, 2010, E047364) 2010 WL 985369 [nonpublished opinion]
Charitable gift doctrine
Arellano v. Regents of University of California (Feb. 10, 2010, G041485) 2010 WL 455396 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff was represented by two law firms, neither of which prepared or filed opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the standard of care. One firm unilaterally withdrew from representing plaintiff a few days before the hearing and the other firm asked
Bridal Images v. Truck Insurance Exchange (Feb. 10, 2010, B213083) 2010 WL 447847 [nonpublished opinion]
The plaintiff, a designer and merchant of bridal gowns and accessories, sued its insurer, GMSR’s client, for breach of contract and insurance bad faith, after the insurer refused to pay a substantial water-damage claim resulting from a broken fire sprinkler. The insurer obtained summary adjudication
Bazzini v. Technicolor, Inc. (Jan. 21, 2010, B205947) 2010 WL 186157 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued the husband’s former employer, GMSR’s client, for injuries allegedly resulting from the husband’s exposure to chemicals in his job. Plaintiffs asserted they were not limited to workers’ compensation remedies because GMSR’s client fraudulently concealed that the husband’s exposure to
Holmes v. Tsou (Jan. 19, 2010, B204745) 2010 WL 161489 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff sought treatment for her fractured wrist from GMSR’s client, defendant orthopedist. The orthopedist concluded that surgery was not a reasonable option for her, performed a nonsurgical procedure instead and never discussed surgery with her. Plaintiff then sued the orthopedist, alleging that he was negligent
Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980
Former trade secrets owner had standing to assert trade secret misappropriation claim
Wright v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (Dec. 17, 2009, A123721) 2009 WL 4882680 [nonpublished opinion]
Three siblings attempted to sue for the wrongful death of their sister, arguing that they became the sister’s heirs when their mother died after the sister. The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing to
Greenspan v. Manhattan Loft, LLC (Nov. 10, 2009, B205917) 2009 WL 3740703 [nonpublished opinion]
The trial court struck $12 million from a $14 million arbitration award, concluding that the parties did not submit to arbitration the issue that resulted in those damages. The court reached that conclusion by interpreting a series of contracts de novo and then using that
© 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.