Court of Appeal invalidates San Diego County Local Rule 2.1.3 and vacates judgment entered after judge rejected peremptory challenge
GMSR’s client, represented at trial by Strategic Legal Practices, was scheduled to try her case before a San Diego judge, but his calendar became too crowded. Acting under Local Rule 2.1.3, which purports to provide any judge of that court with the power to act
Court of Appeal reverses judgment, ordering Proposition 51 apportionment retrial
GMSR’s landlord client invited a guest to visit her property. During the visit, a dog attacked the guest and she sued the landlord for negligence. At trial, the landlord presented evidence that her tenant owned the dog and was therefore strictly liable to the plaintiff
Court of Appeal reverses order denying settlement enforcement and interprets settlement under CCP 998 in favor of GMSR’s clients
GMSR’s clients leased a vehicle that proved to be a lemon and sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer sent the clients a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer, and they accepted. Under the settlement agreement, the manufacturer
GMSR persuades Court of Appeal to set aside $7.619 million judgment against its client
In a wrongful death case, the decedent’s family sued GMSR’s truck-driver client and his employer for negligence. Before trial, the truck driver disappeared. When plaintiffs served requests for admissions (RFAs) on the driver regarding liability and he failed to answer, plaintiffs successfully moved the trial
GMSR secures reversal of anti-SLAPP dismissal on the basis of circumstantial evidence
GMSR’s client, Broadcom subsidiary LSI Corporation, sued a former employee for breaching a confidentiality agreement. Among other things, LSI alleged that the employee disclosed LSI’s confidential information to his wife’s company by retaining LSI’s confidential material when he left LSI, and then posting that information
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
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
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
Court Affirms Summary Judgment For GMSR’s Client On Employment Discrimination Claims
Delta Dental laid off 33 employees as part of a reorganization. One sued, alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Delta, and GMSR secured an affirmance on appeal. Agreeing with GMSR’s position, the Court of Appeal held that Delta established
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.