The Court reversed a superior court injunction barring the County from enforcing a Covid-19 pandemic outdoor restaurant dining ban until the County provided the superior court with a “risk-benefit” analysis that the superior court would find acceptable. The Court of Appeal held that the County’s
On the heels of a Ninth Circuit victory relating to the same events, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a student’s discrimination claim for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. Deciding an issue of first impression, the Second District
While riding his bicycle, plaintiff was hit by a car in a controlled intersection. Because of his injuries, plaintiff could not recall how the accident happened, including where he was and the direction he was traveling just before the collision. He sued GMSR’s client City
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.
Plaintiff Michael Easley jumped out of a car that had just led police officers on a high speed chase, and ran down a residential street. As he ran, he pulled a gun out of his pants, raised it across his body, and threw it like
Homeowners sued GMSR’s client, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), as well as other water districts, for nuisance and inverse condemnation, asserting that water provided by MWD to their homes contained disinfectants that caused pinhole leaks in their plumbing. In a published opinion, the Court of
The Ninth Circuit today affirmed summary judgment in favor of GMSR’s clients—the County of Los Angeles and a group of its employees—who were accused of deliberate indifference to a jailed patient’s medical needs. The trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149. This landmark preemption decision will benefit municipalities across the country. Two disabled persons sued GMSR’s client, the City of Los Angeles, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
In a second attempt by a restaurant owner to sue GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, for allegedly imposing excessive and illegal health inspection fees, GMSR again prevailed in obtaining an affirmance of the judgment in the County’s favor based on res judicata principles.
In a second attempt by a restaurant owner to sue GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, for allegedly imposing excessive and illegal health inspection fees, GMSR again prevailed in obtaining an affirmance of the judgment in the County’s favor based on res judicata principles.
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.