Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (Sept. 29, 2014, B251366) 2014 WL 4807719 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed post-judgment orders denying plaintiff $7.5 million in post-judgment interest over and above what the Hospital paid under the
Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5942 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Two years after Cedars-Sinai summarily suspended a physician’s medical staff privileges, he sued Cedars-Sinai for denial of his right to practice medicine. The trial
Camargo v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5946 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. A jury found that in the care of a patient who was suffering from flesh-eating bacteria and later died, JFK Memorial
Barrett v. Leech (July 24, 2014, D063991) 2014 WL 3659366 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. A horse owner hired a farrier to trim his horses’ hooves in the owner’s outdoor corral. While the farrier was trying to secure one of
Bing Crosby v. HLC Properties, Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 597 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [published]. In an important decision for the entertainment industry, the Court of Appeal resolved a publicity rights dispute in favor of GMSR’s clients, famous crooner Bing
In re Marriage of Jones (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub LEXIS 138 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Wife petitioned to dissolve her marriage to husband, GMSR’s client. Husband wanted to remarry, but the dissolution proceedings bogged down in disputes over financial
Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3, 134 S. Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2013) (United States Supreme Court). In response to GMSR’s certiorari petition, the United States Supreme Court did not simply grant the petition, but—without further briefing or oral argument—issued a full
Doctors Company v. Sherman Oaks Hospital (2013) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 7816 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, a hospital, and three doctors all settled with the claimants. One doctor obtained a good faith settlement determination. The two remaining
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (Bautista) (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1199 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [published]. Despite tragic facts, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate, holding that GMSR’s insurance-carrier client owed no coverage under a homeowners insurance
Adamo v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1286 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One) [published]. When San Diego wildfires damaged landscaping on a homeowner’s property and several detached outbuildings, GMSR’s insurance-carrier client reimbursed the homeowner’s losses in excess of $100,000, exhausting
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.
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.