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.
Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Company (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1
Wrongful death action arising from collision with truck stopped next to freeway
Hines v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority (Nov. 6, 2009, B208389) 2009 WL 3682603 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR won affirmance of client MTA’s summary judgment in an employment discrimination action. Plaintiff alleged that MTA wrongfully discriminated against her because of her obesity. The evidence established that her obesity had no underlying medical cause, but resulted from life style choices. She relied on
Bioquest Venture Leasing Company-A, N.V. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (Nov. 5, 2009, B201454) 2009 WL 3719534 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff sued GMSR’s client VivoRx for breach of a biotechnology license agreement that was silent on choice of law. VivoRx argued that California law applied, and that it barred plaintiff’s claims as untimely, while plaintiff insisted that Massachusetts law governed the lawsuit, and that its
City of Moreno Valley v. Superior Court (Oct. 26, 2009, E047606) 2009 WL 3419680 [nonpublished opinion]
The plaintiff asserted that GMSR’s client city was liable for a dangerous condition in an intersection. Plaintiff was traveling on his motorcycle southbound on a two lane road when he was struck by a northbound vehicle illegally turning left in front of him at an
Burlage v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 524
Reversal of arbitration award for arbitrator’s failure to consider evidence (amicus brief)
Murphy v. Hansen (Aug. 27, 2009, B206751) 2009 WL 2623335 [nonpublished opinion]
After GMSR’s client purchased a Malibu hilltop homesite together with essential access easements, a neighboring landowner challenged the easements’ existence. The multiple disputing parties in two lawsuits entered into a complex written settlement agreement involving transfers of land, easements, trust deeds, and cash—but then could
Corrales v. County of Los Angeles (July 21, 2009, B207469) 2009 WL 2152909 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff, a professional boxer, suffered permanent injury to his right hand following allegedly negligent medical surgery by County doctors in September 2002. The primary question on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that plaintiff had not timely complied with
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (July 1, 2009, B208715) 2009 WL 1875266 [nonpublished opinion]
Anti-SLAPP law covers public officials’ statements to press and Board of Supervisors; protected by official-duty, official proceeding and common-interest privileges
In re Marriage of Feliciano (May 15, 2009, G039357) 2009 WL 1364420 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client Janna Feliciano and musician Jose Feliciano divorced in 1978. Their community property included royalty rights for dozens of Janna’s and Jose’s compositions and Jose’s recordings, including still-popular original works such as Feliz Navidad and covers of other songs such as Light My Fire.
Loerch v. Regents of the University of Cal. (Apr. 7, 2009, D051154) 2009 WL 924420 [nonpublished opinion]
The plaintiff sought reversal of a defense verdict in medical malpractice suit. He faulted the trial court for failing to investigate allegations of juror misconduct midway through trial and for denying his motion to augment his expert’s declaration. He also challenged a ruling that sustained
© 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.