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.
GMSR successfully invokes rarely-used “disentitlement doctrine” to obtain dismissal of appeal from $8.5 million judgment
Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [published]. Defendants, who live in New York, appealed from an $8.5 million California fraud judgment in favor of GMSR’s client without obtaining a stay of enforcement. While the
Court of Appeal orders a new trial for GMSR’s clients on the basis of disjunctive wording in a special verdict form
Siry v. Farkhondehpour et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9014 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued its two partners, including GMSR’s clients, both in their individual capacities and in their capacities as trustees of various trusts, claiming that
Nicolas v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2012) 486 Fed.Appx. 699
Plaintiff’s first ex-husband was murdered in the City of Riverside. Plaintiff and two others were charged with the murder. Plaintiff was acquitted. She sued GMSR’s clients, the City of Riverside and two Riverside Police Department detectives, under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of
Bioquest Venture Leasing Company-A, N.V. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (Feb. 22, 2012, B225195) 2012 WL 592438 [nonpublished opinion]
This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a $2.5 million judgment on the basis of a statute of limitations defense. However, each side read the court of appeal’s disposition of the case
Court of Appeal adopts GMSR’s interpretation of Court’s earlier decision in favor of GMSR’s client
Bioquest Venture Leasing Co. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1293 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a
HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (Sept. 7, 2011 E053977) 2011 WL 3904639 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out the lien on six of the properties, the owner of the seventh filed a motion asking the trial court to apportion
Court of Appeal finds GMSR’s client is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on mechanic’s lien
HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6745 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out
Ninth Circuit upholds terminating sanctions and $1.1 million default judgment entered for GMSR’s client after opponents’ discovery abuse
Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14686 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. GMSR’s client, the Film Musicians Secondary Market Fund — created under collective bargaining agreements between the film industry and the American Federation
Leontaritis v. Koursaris, 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5041
No one is supposed to be subjected to judgment without first duly being brought under the jurisdiction of the court. But the superior court refused to set aside a default judgment entered against GMSR’s client in a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit or to recognize that the
Court reverses default judgment, quashes service of process on GMSR client
Leontaritis v. Koursaris (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5041 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. No one is supposed to be subjected to judgment without first duly being brought under the jurisdiction of the court. But the superior court refused to
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.