PAGA
Share
Morales v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, S284011.
#24-79 Morales v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, S284011. (B312212, B316290; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC645205, JCCP4975, RG17881136.) Petition for review after the CA affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,
Porras v. Chipotle Services, LLC, S276866.
#22-294 Porras v. Chipotle Services, LLC, S276866. (F081113, F081670; nonpublished opinion; Stanislaus County Superior Court; CV-19-000937.) Petition for review after the CA affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., S271721 (#22-03), which presents
Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers, S282173.
#23-240 Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers, S282173. (A165320; 94 Cal.App.5th 1128, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 931b; Sonoma County Superior Court; SCV268956.) The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., S271721 (#22-03), which presents the following issue: Does a plaintiff in a representative action
Gonzalez v. Aluminum Precision Products, S285618.
#24-140 Gonzalez v. Aluminum Precision Products, S285618. (B327278; nonpublished opinion; Ventura County Superior Court; 56-2022-00571822-CU-OEVTA.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., S271721 (#22-03), which
Krug v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S282131.
#23-255 Krug v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S282131. (B320588; 94 Cal.App.5th 1158; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 21STCV14538.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Stone
Stone v. Alameda Health System, S279137.
#23-94 Stone v. Alameda Health System, S279137. (A164021; 88 Cal.App.5th 84; Alameda County Superior Court; RG21092734.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Are
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., S271721.
#22-03 Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., S271721. (B304701; 69 Cal.App.5th 955; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC714153.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Does a plaintiff in a representative
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340.
#22-170 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340. (G058397, G058969; 76 Cal.App.5th 685; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2013-00692890.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the
Woodworth v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, S281717.
#23-217 Woodworth v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, S281717. (E072704; 93 Cal.App.5th 1038; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1408640.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part orders in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending
Court of Appeal reverses compensatory and punitive damages and private attorney general fees in bed bug case
GMSR’s client, the defendant hotel, admitted negligence after plaintiffs were briefly exposed to bed bugs in their hotel room. The jury returned a verdict awarding substantial compensatory damages and punitive damages on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for one plaintiff, and compensatory damages
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.