Procedural issues create many traps for the unwary: Irregularities in trial court proceedings or ambiguous verdicts may require a new trial; failing to raise an objection in the trial court can foreclose appellate review of an issue; a settlement that purports to preserve the right to appeal can moot the appeal. The list goes on and on. GMSR is experienced in spotting procedural defects and navigating nuances that can be dispositive on appeal. For that reason, trial counsel and clients often consult with GMSR’s appellate lawyers as a case progresses, in order to maximize their chances of success in an eventual appeal. GMSR’s appellate lawyers have also gotten appeals dismissed, revived litigation that should not have been dismissed, and successfully developed arguments for affirmance or reversal, all based on procedural issues.
Court of Appeal invalidates San Diego County Local Rule 2.1.3 and vacates judgment entered after judge rejected peremptory challenge
GMSR’s client, represented at trial by Strategic Legal Practices, was scheduled to try her case before a San Diego judge, but his calendar became too crowded. Acting under Local Rule 2.1.3, which purports to provide any judge of that court with the power to act
Lorch v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1266
Court of Appeal invalidates San Diego County Local Rule 2.1.3 and vacates judgment entered after judge rejected peremptory challenge
Court of Appeal reverses judgment, ordering Proposition 51 apportionment retrial
GMSR’s landlord client invited a guest to visit her property. During the visit, a dog attacked the guest and she sued the landlord for negligence. At trial, the landlord presented evidence that her tenant owned the dog and was therefore strictly liable to the plaintiff
Hedding-Kelton v. Madrigal (Nov. 1, 2023, C095876) 2023 WL 7175716
Court of Appeal reverses judgment, ordering Proposition 51 apportionment retrial
Court of Appeal reverses order denying settlement enforcement and interprets settlement under CCP 998 in favor of GMSR’s clients
GMSR’s clients leased a vehicle that proved to be a lemon and sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer sent the clients a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer, and they accepted. Under the settlement agreement, the manufacturer
AIX Specialty Insurance Company v. Timed Out, LLC (Oct. 5, 2023, B320255) 2023 WL 6475087
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment, holding that insurance policy does not cover infringement of models’ rights of publicity
Ivar v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Sept. 26, 2023, E078783) 2023 WL 6224689
Court of Appeal reverses order denying settlement enforcement and interprets settlement under CCP 998 in favor of GMSR’s clients
GMSR persuades Court of Appeal to set aside $7.619 million judgment against its client
In a wrongful death case, the decedent’s family sued GMSR’s truck-driver client and his employer for negligence. Before trial, the truck driver disappeared. When plaintiffs served requests for admissions (RFAs) on the driver regarding liability and he failed to answer, plaintiffs successfully moved the trial
Inzunza et al. v. Naranjo et al. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 736
GMSR persuades Court of Appeal to set aside $7.619 million judgment against its client
GMSR secures reversal of anti-SLAPP dismissal on the basis of circumstantial evidence
GMSR’s client, Broadcom subsidiary LSI Corporation, sued a former employee for breaching a confidentiality agreement. Among other things, LSI alleged that the employee disclosed LSI’s confidential information to his wife’s company by retaining LSI’s confidential material when he left LSI, and then posting that information
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 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.