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.
LSI Corporation v. Gunnam et al. (May 22, 2023, H049521, H049523) 2023 WL 3577288
GMSR secures reversal of anti-SLAPP dismissal on the basis of circumstantial evidence
VERDICT Magazine, Backdoor Attorney Fees: Costs-of-Proof Awards
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, allows the requesting party to recover its costs of proof—including potentially substantial attorney fees—when the other side unreasonably denies requests for admissions and the requesting party proves the truth of those matters at trial. In the latest issue of
Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal holds that the increasing acceptance of remote testimony does not necessarily limit venue changes based on witness convenience
A tort defendant moved pre-trial to transfer the case from San Francisco superior court to San Diego superior court for the “convenience of the witnesses” under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c). He argued that most of the witnesses were based in San
Rycz v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824
Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal holds that the increasing acceptance of remote testimony does not necessarily limit venue changes based on witness convenience
Judgment Reversed: The Ninth Circuit Rules That GMSR’s Clients Did Not Abandon A Favorable Jury Verdict Merely By Arguing That Post-Judgment Proceedings Were Unnecessary
GMSR’s clients, two retirees who unwittingly leased a defective car, secured favorable jury verdicts on two claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: one for breach of express warranty and another for breach of implied warranty. Recognizing that they were not entitled to a double
Court Of Appeal Reverses Order Setting Aside Default Judgment
In a 2013 lawsuit, GMSR’s bank client recovered a default judgment for damages and nearly $400,000 in attorney fees. Seven years later, the defendant moved to set aside the judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that there were procedural defects in
Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Letwak & Bennett (May 16, 2022, G059646) 2022 WL 1534602
Court of Appeal reverses order setting aside default judgment
Ray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021, No. 20-55989) 2021 WL 4902357
Ninth Circuit affirms judgment, rejecting plaintiffs’ belated effort to change insurance bad faith theories
Carachure v. Scott (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 16
Court of Appeal rejects plaintiff’s attempt to disavow $15,000 settlement so as to pursue a multi-million-dollar claim
Court Of Appeal Rejects Plaintiff’s Attempt To Disavow $15,000 Settlement So As To Pursue A Multi-million-dollar Claim
A plaintiff was seriously injured in an auto accident. Her counsel demanded that the defendant and the defendant’s insurance carrier settle the plaintiff’s injury claim by paying the full $15,000 policy limit. The carrier accepted and complied with all the demand’s short-fuse conditions, thereby dashing
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.