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.
Krishnan v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Jan. 23, 2008, B194755) 2008 WL 186652 [nonpublished opinion]
Defendants moved for summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim. Plaintiff filed his opposition more than a week late, asking the trial court to excuse the lateness because of an unspecified calendaring error by his counsel’s office. The trial court denied the request and granted
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835
Interpretation of allegedly ambiguous jury verdict
Kouri v. Superior Court (2007) 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 777 [depublished]
Obtaining depublication of published Court of Appeal opinion regarding liability of CPA firm
Chosak v. Alameda County Medical Center (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 549
Whether medical student is a “health care provider” for purposes of the MICRA statute of limitations
Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624
Construction of contracts; propriety of new trial order based on jury misconduct
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390
Terminating discovery sanctions appropriate for untimely discovery response in business tort action
Davis v. Yageo Corp. (9th Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 661
Preemption of state-law claims by Bankruptcy Code; res judicata; standing
Telenda v. NM Homes One, Inc. (Feb. 27, 2007, B185681) 2007 WL 586804 [nonpublished opinion]
Propriety of summary judgment order; construction of agreements to construct and sell home
Aller v. Board of Regents of University of California (Jan. 10, 2007, B180684) 2007 WL 60779 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR secured a victorious ending in a 14-year-old case against the UC Regents. The case had earlier been dismissed for failure to prosecute, which dismissal was reversed on a prior appeal. More than five years after the case returned to the trial court, the action
Gordon v. Richard Maslan & Co., Inc. (Dec. 20, 2006, No. B190946) 2006 WL 3735345 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR convinced the Court of Appeal that it was improper for the trial court to dismiss GMSR’s client’s complaint for failure to bring to trial within five years. The court ruled that the impracticability exception to the five year statute applied, since the key defendant
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.