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 (2010) 2010 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 9862 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. 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
Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010) 562 U.S. 29 [131 S.Ct. 447] (United States Supreme Court). Tim Coates, Alison Turner and Lillie Hsu obtained a unanimous decision from the United States Supreme Court for the County of Los Angeles in Los Angeles County v. Humphries
Delgado v. City of Riverside (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9084 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two) [unpublished]. A jury convicted Gerardo Delgado of resisting police officers who were attempting to arrest him. Delgado then filed a civil rights suit alleging that it
Shah v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2010) 399 Fed.Appx. 305, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21116 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished]. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Shah v. County of Los Angeles, et al., affirming a judgment
Ra El v. Crain (9th Cir. 2010) 399 Fed.Appx. 180, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20536 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished]. Pro se plaintiff Ankhenaten Ra El’s civil rights complaint alleged a large number of constitutional violations arising out of two
Roosen v. Farrell (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7115 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution action against GMSR’s attorney client under the anti-SLAPP statute. The malicious prosecution action
Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., et al. (9th Cir. 2010) 617 F.3d 1146 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a $2.6 million judgment for GMSR’s client in
In re Marriage of Armour/Ritter (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6108 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) [unpublished]. A wife in a marital dissolution proceeding incurred almost $700,000 in attorney’s fees litigating whether the confidential documents of her husband’s employer, which the spouses
Arellano v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5903 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, alleging that County employees violated the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, the Tom
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.