Court of Appeal confirms that insurer was justified in denying insurance benefits
Bridal Images, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1001 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. The plaintiff, a designer and merchant of bridal gowns and accessories, sued its insurer, GMSR’s client, for breach of contract and insurance
Court of Appeal affirms order denying reconsideration of summary judgment where plaintiff failed to file opposition to original motion
Arellano v. The Regents of the University of California (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 986 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Plaintiff was represented by two law firms, neither of which prepared or filed opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary
Court of Appeal holds that fraudulent concealment exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity is inapplicable where employer lacks knowledge that employee’s symptoms may lead to cancer
Bazzini v. Technicolor, Inc. (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 390 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued the husband’s former employer, GMSR’s client, for injuries allegedly resulting from the husband’s exposure to chemicals in his job.
Court of Appeal rejects plaintiff’s claim that she was entitled to special jury instructions, finding that CACI instructions adequately encompassed the issues
Holmes v. Tsou (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 338 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sought treatment for her fractured wrist from GMSR’s client, defendant orthopedist. The orthopedist concluded that surgery was not a reasonable option for her, performed a
Court of Appeal reverses dismissal of trade secret misappropriation claims
Jasmine Networks, Inc v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980 (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District). The trial court dismissed a trade secrets misappropriation suit on the eve of trial, concluding that the plaintiff lost standing to pursue its claims when it sold what
Court of Appeal affirms that standing to assert a wrongful death claim is purely statutory and determined as of the date of death
Wright v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (2009) 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9990 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. Three siblings attempted to sue for the wrongful death of their sister, arguing that they became the sister’s heirs when their mother died
Court reverses judgment and reinstates $14 million arbitration award
Greenspan v. Manhattan Loft (2009) 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8933 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. The trial court struck $12 million from a $14 million arbitration award, concluding that the parties did not submit to arbitration the issue that resulted
Court of Appeal requires underlying physiological cause as prerequisite to maintaining claim for employment discrimination based on “perceived” disability
Hines v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2009) 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8865 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. GMSR won affirmance of client MTA’s summary judgment in an employment discrimination action. Plaintiff alleged that MTA wrongfully discriminated against her
Court of Appeal reverses multi-million dollar judgment against GMSR clients on ground that California, not Massachusetts law, determines the applicable statute of limitations
Bioquest Venture Leasing Company-A, N.V. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (2009) 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8833 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued GMSR’s client VivoRx for breach of a biotechnology license agreement that was silent on choice of law. VivoRx
Court of Appeal bars dangerous condition liability for city based on failure to install particular type of traffic signal
City of Moreno Valley v. Superior Court (2009) 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8478 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. The plaintiff asserted that GMSR’s client city was liable for a dangerous condition in an intersection. Plaintiff was traveling on his motorcycle
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.