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.
Composite Technology Corp. v. Superior Court (Apr. 21, 2005, G035411
Judicial disqualification for cause
Schaeffer v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 6144
Writ challenge regarding production of privileged lawyer-client emails and electronic databases containing constitutionally protected employee information
Gordon v. Superior Court (Apr. 25, 2005, No. B180554) 2005 WL 948851 [nonpublished opinion]
$500,000 sanction against party without proper notice or statutory authority
Deloitte & Touche, LLP v. Superior Court (Jan. 25, 2005, G034895)
Discovery rule as applied to statute of limitations for accounting malpractice
McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Jan. 24, 2005, B172622) 2005 WL 236558 [nonpublished opinion]
Propriety of rejecting medical malpractice expert’s testimony on the basis of the expert’s lack of qualifications and his failure to provide a reasonable basis for his opinions
Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389
Appropriateness of trial court’s denial of trial continuance where a party’s attorney is engaged in another trial
Hancock v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (June 21, 2004, B170831) 2004 WL 1376400 [nonpublished opinion]
Scope and effect of contractual waiver of right to jury trial; legal vs. equitable issues
Bray v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 2003 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7844
Dismissal as discovery sanction
Yun v. Superior Court (2004) 2004 Cal. LEXIS 200
Service by publication of Chinese-language summons in Taiwan newspaper
Legesse v. Alta Bates Medical Center (Mar. 6, 2003, A099472) 2003 WL 773683 [nonpublished opinion]
Lack of standing to sue hospital re: purportedly-coerced abortion
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.