Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of hotel’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
HT-Seattle, operator of a large Seattle-area hotel and conference center, suffered business losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. HT-Seattle sued its property insurer (GMSR’s client) to cover these losses, claiming that the presence of COVID-19 virus at the hotel constituted “direct physical loss or damage” to
GMSR secures reversal of anti-SLAPP dismissal on the basis of circumstantial evidence
GMSR’s client, Broadcom subsidiary LSI Corporation, sued a former employee for breaching a confidentiality agreement. Among other things, LSI alleged that the employee disclosed LSI’s confidential information to his wife’s company by retaining LSI’s confidential material when he left LSI, and then posting that information
Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Starlight Cinemas suffered business losses as a result of government closure orders and reduced ticket and concession sales. Starlight sued its property insurer (GMSR’s client) to cover these losses, claiming the closures and reduced attendance constituted “direct physical loss” to its
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment, finding no duty in case alleging inadequate streetlighting by public utility
While on their nightly walk to a neighborhood park, the plaintiffs’ parents were hit in a crosswalk. The plaintiffs sued Caltech and GMSR’s client, the public utility that provided streetlighting in the area. The plaintiffs contended that because of Caltech’s efforts to mitigate light pollution
GMSR notches another appellate win in high-stakes COVID insurance litigation
Plaintiff In-N-Out Burgers sought coverage from its property insurer for losses it argued were sustained as a result of the COVID-19 virus. Like dozens of other unsuccessful COVID-19-era lawsuits against insurance carriers, it argued there was “direct physical loss of or damage” to its property
Court of Appeal affirms defense verdict in $40 million case alleging false financial statements, finding no prejudice from claimed instructional error
GMSR’s clients sold their Mercedes dealership to plaintiffs for $100 million. Several years later, plaintiffs sued, claiming that the financial statements the clients gave them were inaccurate and led them to overvalue the dealership’s good will by $40 million. After the clients defeated plaintiffs’ fraud
GMSR secures reversal of “arbitrary” attorney fee award
GMSR’s client sued a loan servicer for quiet title and related claims, alleging the loan servicer recorded documents that interfered with the client’s right under the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) to take free-and-clear title to property at a court-ordered sale. The parties stipulated to a
Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of wrongful foreclosure, contract, and quiet title claims against GMSR’s client
A rental property owner with a mortgage from GMSR’s client defaulted on the mortgage. GMSR’s client tried to foreclose on the property, but the owner resisted at every turn. He and his agents filed four bankruptcy actions ultimately deemed to be bad faith efforts to
GMSR secures another Court of Appeal win holding that manufacturers cannot offset their Song-Beverly Act damages by amounts the plaintiff receives for trading in a “lemon” vehicle
The Song-Beverly Act requires car manufacturers to promptly buy back defective cars without the consumer having to sue. Consumer advocates have long argued that manufacturers may not offset damages for amounts that plaintiffs are credited when they sell or trade in a defective car under
Court of Appeal reverses denial of alter ego motion
Code of Civil Procedure section 187 permits trial courts to disregard the corporate shield by amending judgments to include alter egos of the original judgment debtor. Invoking section 187, GMSR’s client moved to add two individuals to a judgment against the individuals’ LLCs. The trial
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.