Court Of Appeal Reverses Judgment And Injunction Order, Holding That Lease Triggers GMSR Clients’ Property Purchase Rights
GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, sought enforcement of the buy-back terms in a 1957 land sale agreement with the Claremont School of Theology (CST). In the 1957 agreement, CST promised that the land would be used for educational purposes only, and if CST ever wanted
Court Of Appeal Reverses Judgment Against GMSR’s Clients And Orders Full Enforcement Of Their Property Purchase Rights
In 1957, GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, sold campus land to the Claremont School of Theology (CST). CST agreed that if it ever wanted to sell the land or ceased using it, the Colleges could buy it back for the original sale price, plus some
In published opinion, Ninth Circuit revives building owners’ easement complaint previously dismissed on summary judgment
GMSR’s clients, who own a building in the Manhattan Village shopping center, agreed with defendant owner of the remainder of the center to a revitalization construction project that would increase the amount of parking near the clients’ building. Soon, the defendant began making significant changes
In Published Opinion, Court Of Appeal Upholds GMSR Client’s Right To New Trial
Plaintiff sued GMSR’s clients for wrongful foreclosure after they purchased a real property loan on which plaintiff had defaulted. The matter proceeded to a judicial reference, which resulted in a determination by the referee that GMSR’s clients were liable for millions in both compensatory and
Court of Appeal affirmed grants for summary judgment for GMSR’s private landowner client
Plaintiff tripped and fell over a defect on a municipal sidewalk next to property owned by GMSR’s client, Street 41, LLC. He sued the City of Oakland and Street 41 for failing to maintain the sidewalk. The trial court granted the City’s and Street 41’s
GMSR prevails in major land use appeal
In Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship v. County of Riverside, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Riverside, in a suit asserting that a County zoning ordinance was facially invalid under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) as purportedly disallowing religious organizations to operate in the zone. The Ninth Circuit held that the zoning allowed construction of special occasion facilities. Nothing on the face of the statute indicates that a religious group would not be granted a permit to construct such a facility and use it for religious purposes, so there was no violation of RLUIPA. The statute merely requires public entities to treat religious uses the same as secular uses.
Court of Appeal reverses judgment against GMSR’s client, and holds good faith purchasers are not bound by irrevocable licenses
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against GMSR’s client and directed the trial court to enter judgment in its favor. GMSR’s client purchased a commercial warehouse property in 1994 without actual or constructive notice of an unrecorded 1950 agreement that
Court of Appeal affirms judgment of nonsuit in favor of GMSR’s client
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
Court of Appeal affirms damages and fee awards in favor of real estate developers and rejects neighboring homeowners association’s million-dollar counterclaim.
GMSR’s clients acquired four parcels of land and began developing residential homesites—a process that requires frequent pre-development visits by multiple contractors. Because the land was not adjacent to public streets, the developers and their visitors accessed it by driving through a guarded gate and then
GMSR’s client faced loss of her home on account of an unauthorized home equity loan from which she received nothing. Judgment for the lender reversed.
The issue on appeal was whether evidence of the homeowner’s execution of a written agreement with a third party ratified the third party’s previously unauthorized execution of a trust deed on her home. Since a trust deed must be in writing, under the “equal dignities
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.
© 2025 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.