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.
A 911 caller reported that a man in his apartment complex was acting erratically. City of Oxnard police officers went to the complex, and ultimately used physical force to subdue the man. A County of Los Angeles paramedic then arrived and provided him with emergency
On January 7, GMSR’s co-managing partner, Cindy Tobisman, appeared for oral argument in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiff in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, which poses the following issue: Do Code of Civil Procedure section 998’s cost-shifting provisions apply if the
Plaintiffs sued numerous doctors and hospitals for failing to diagnose a rare brain infection. Their counsel repeatedly failed to produce their designated medical expert for deposition. The court eventually excluded the expert, but declined to dismiss the case because plaintiffs’ counsel contended that she could
California appellate courts are split on whether a writ petition is the exclusive means to challenge a good faith settlement determination under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 or whether litigants can raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment. In a new article
GMSR wins affirmance of judgment, costs, and sanctions awards in medical malpractice case
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
Court of Appeal invalidates San Diego County Local Rule 2.1.3 and vacates judgment entered after judge rejected peremptory challenge
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
Court of Appeal reverses judgment, ordering Proposition 51 apportionment retrial
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
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.
