GMSR successfully defends client against claimed $7.5 million post-judgment interest windfall
Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (Sept. 29, 2014, B251366) 2014 WL 4807719 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed post-judgment orders denying plaintiff $7.5 million in post-judgment interest over and above what the Hospital paid under the
GMSR successfully invokes rarely-used “disentitlement doctrine” to obtain dismissal of appeal from $8.5 million judgment
Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [published]. Defendants, who live in New York, appealed from an $8.5 million California fraud judgment in favor of GMSR’s client without obtaining a stay of enforcement. While the
Court of Appeal orders a new trial for GMSR’s clients on the basis of disjunctive wording in a special verdict form
Siry v. Farkhondehpour et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9014 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sued its two partners, including GMSR’s clients, both in their individual capacities and in their capacities as trustees of various trusts, claiming that
Court of Appeal adopts GMSR’s interpretation of Court’s earlier decision in favor of GMSR’s client
Bioquest Venture Leasing Co. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1293 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a
Court of Appeal finds GMSR’s client is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on mechanic’s lien
HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6745 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out
Ninth Circuit upholds terminating sanctions and $1.1 million default judgment entered for GMSR’s client after opponents’ discovery abuse
Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14686 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. GMSR’s client, the Film Musicians Secondary Market Fund — created under collective bargaining agreements between the film industry and the American Federation
Court reverses default judgment, quashes service of process on GMSR client
Leontaritis v. Koursaris (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5041 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. No one is supposed to be subjected to judgment without first duly being brought under the jurisdiction of the court. But the superior court refused to
Court of Appeal confirms broad scope of attorney-client and work product protection
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [published]. The trial court ordered an attorney who formerly represented Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. to answer five deposition questions over objections of attorney-client and work
Court affirms denial of attorney fee award to opponent of GMSR’s public entity client
Martinez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1038 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [published]. Plaintiff accepted a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 from GMSR’s client, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The offer
Court affirms attorney fee award to GMSR’s public entity client
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2389 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los
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.