Williams v. County of Los Angeles (2006) U.S.App.LEXIS 28085 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished]. Lillie Hsu, Carolyn Oill and Marty Stein combined for this victory. A prisoner filed a section 1983 action, pro se, against the County of Los Angeles,
Fu v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority (2006) Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 10028 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five (Los Angeles)) [unpublished]. Barbara Perry and Marty Stein secured a complete reversal here. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,678,000 in damages, $57,961 in costs and
Shelden v. Grossman (2006) Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8805 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven (Los Angeles)) [unpublished]. Ted Xanders and Robin Meadow were responsible for the victory in this legal malpractice/fraud action against a law firm. The plaintiff alleged that the firm had
Wang v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, (2006) Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8459 (California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One (San Francisco)) [unpublished]. Carolyn Oill and Marty Stein represented GMSR’s client, a medical center. The plaintiff sued for allegedly “falsifying” her medical records. The trial
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 50 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three (Los Angeles)) [published]. Marc Poster and Kent Richland secured this victory. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had erred in disqualifying GMSR’s client
Pagarigan v. Greater Valley Medical Group, Inc. (Aug. 23, 2006, B172642) 2006 WL 2425298 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven (Los Angeles)) [nonpublished opinion]. Barbara Ravitz and Robin Meadow prevailed in this test case for expanding elder abuse liability beyond immediate caregivers. The
Zand v. Old Republic, Case No. G035874 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three (Santa Ana)). Cindy Tobisman and Robin Meadow won without even having to obtain a court decision. The plaintiff alleged that GMSR’s client, a title insurer, negligently concluded that his consent
Burrus v. City of Los Angeles (2006) U.S.App. LEXIS 21076 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [unpublished]. Lillie Hsu, Carolyn Oill and Marty Stein combined for this recent victory. In a memorandum decision, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the
Feied v. Regents of University of California (July 24, 2006, A112481) 2006 WL 2046963 (California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four (San Francisco)) [nonpublished opinion]. Marc Poster secured this victory in association with University counsel. A former University of California employee sought continuing retirement
Mir v. Iungerich & Spackman (June 22, 2006, B184463) 2006 WL 1704061 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three (Los Angeles)) [nonpublished opinion]. Peter Israel wrote the respondent’s brief in this case. The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for appellate fees in favor
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.