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.
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (amicus)
Court of Appeal confirms broad scope of attorney-client and work product protection
Court of Appeal confirms broad scope of attorney-client and work product protection
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [published]. The trial court ordered an attorney who formerly represented Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. to answer five deposition questions over objections of attorney-client and work
Court affirms denial of attorney fee award to opponent of GMSR’s public entity client
Martinez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1038 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [published]. Plaintiff accepted a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 from GMSR’s client, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The offer
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (Mar. 30, 2011, B223345) 2011 WL 1138420 [nonpublished opinion]
In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, and remanded the case for an award of fees to the County. After the briefing on the fee motion was ostensibly
Court affirms attorney fee award to GMSR’s public entity client
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2389 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los
Court reverses trial court’s refusal to add alter ego judgment debtors
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [published]. While attempting to collect an $8 million arbitration award that GMSR had successfully defended against vacatur, GMSR’s client learned that the defendant companies had transferred nearly all
Parks Legal Defense Fund v. City of Huntington Beach (Dec. 13, 2010, G043109) 2010 WL 5066160 [nonpublished opinion]
The City of Huntington Beach, GMSR’s client, planned to construct a state-of-the-art senior center in one of its parks. The trial court halted the project. Among other things, it found that the funding mechanism for the center was an illegal use of fees assessed against
Genji Torihara v. Regents of University of California (May 18, 2010, B215801) 2010 WL 1972262 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff injured his foot when the wheelchair in which he was riding hit a wall. He was in the hospital at the time, being pushed between the CT room and the x-ray room, for doctor-ordered tests for possible head injuries. Plaintiff did not file his
Arellano v. Regents of University of California (Feb. 10, 2010, G041485) 2010 WL 455396 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff was represented by two law firms, neither of which prepared or filed opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the standard of care. One firm unilaterally withdrew from representing plaintiff a few days before the hearing and the other firm asked
Court of Appeal affirms order denying reconsideration of summary judgment where plaintiff failed to file opposition to original motion
Arellano v. The Regents of the University of California (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 986 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Plaintiff was represented by two law firms, neither of which prepared or filed opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary
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.