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.
Williams v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2006) 205 Fed.Appx. 593
A prisoner filed a section 1983 action, pro se, against the County of Los Angeles, alleging he was denied a lower bunk even though he had medical authorization for one. The memorandum opinion holds that the district court: (1) properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s
Shelden v. Grossman (Oct. 3, 2006, B184270) 2006 WL 2808155 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR appellate lawyers Ted Xanders and Robin Meadow were responsible for the victory in this legal malpractice/fraud action against a law firm. The plaintiff alleged that the firm had helped its client, the plaintiff’s stepfather, to induce the plaintiff’s mother to leave all her property
Wang v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center (Sept. 25, 2006, No. A113936) 2006 WL 2724062 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR appellate lawyers Carolyn Oill and Marty Stein represented GMSR’s client, a medical center. The plaintiff sued for allegedly “falsifying” her medical records. The trial court dismissed the action when the plaintiff failed to amend the complaint after a demurrer was sustained with leave to
Burrus v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2006) 197 Fed.Appx. 665
In a memorandum decision, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s pro se complaint against the County of Los Angeles and one of its jail physicians for negligence and medical malpractice. Resting on an argument made in GMSR’s appellees’ brief, the opinion
Feied v. Regents of University of California (July 24, 2006, A112481) 2006 WL 2046963 [nonpublished opinion]
Marc Poster secured this victory in association with University counsel. A former University of California employee sought continuing retirement benefits even though he had cashed out of the University’s retirement system when he left University employment many years ago. First, he lost a state breach
English v. McKenna (Nov. 29, 2005, B176725) 2005 WL 3163548 [nonpublished opinion]
Dismissal for untimely summary judgment opposition
Benesch v. Tandler, 2005 Cal.App. LEXIS 2047
Continuous representation as basis for tolling of statute of limitations for legal malpractice suit; propriety of summary judgment order
Baltmar v. Towson, 2005 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 3822
Construction of class action settlement agreements
Cohen v. Bank Leumi Le-Israel (July 28, 2005, B174254) 2005 WL 1775038 [nonpublished opinion]
Sufficiency of contact between foreign party and California resident to support exercise of jurisdiction
Williams v. Bendetti Management Group (July 27, 2005, G031578) 2005 WL 1785965, as modified on denial of reh’g (June 19, 2006), vacated sub nom. Williams v. Benedetti Management Group (Cal. Ct. App., May 19, 2006, No. G031578) 2006 WL 1381853 [nonpublished opinion]
Procedural requirements in class action concerning mobile home park
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.