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.
Etelaei v. First General Bank (June 18, 2019, B287186) 2019 WL 2511405
GMSR’s client faced loss of her home on account of an unauthorized home equity loan from which she received nothing. Judgment for the lender reversed
Counting the minutes… Calculating the deadline for requesting a statement of decision, Daily Journal (June 10, 2019)
Dane-Elec Corp., USA v. Bodokh (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 761 is a cautionary tale for any proceeding that hovers around the eight-hour mark. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 632, if a trial concludes “within one calendar day or in less than eight hours over more
Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Cunningham (June 7, 2019, C076994) 2019 WL 2402272
Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense
Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense
Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense.
Ninth Circuit grants GMSR’s motion to dismiss interlocutory appeal from discovery ruling
GMSR, representing the defendant seeking to take the deposition, moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion argued that Ninth Circuit case law precludes a party from appealing an interlocutory discovery ruling, and that the same rationale should apply to non-party IMS because its objections were identical to Valley’s.
Estate of Jackson (May 16, 2019, B282375) 2019 WL 2136114
Court of Appeal rejects claim that Michael Jackson gave away 15% of his business at a middle-of-the-night meeting
Court of Appeal rejects claim that Michael Jackson gave away 15% of his business at a middle-of-the-night meeting
Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 15% of The Michael Jackson Company in a middle-of-the-night meeting in 2006. After a long bench trial, the probate court rejected those claims on multiple grounds and confirmed that Jackson wholly owned the company.
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019, B281210) 2019 WL 1395963
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding. The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans. The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury.
Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Audio Visual Entertainment, Inc. (Dec. 31, 2018, B278076, B278122) 2018 WL 6839451
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment entitling bank to collect on defaulted loans
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.