Cases
GMSR has an enviable record of success on appeal. For your convenience, the firm has provided a simple search tool for guests and clients to search that record.
First Motor Group of Encino, LLC et al. v. Encino Motorcars, LLC et al. (Mar. 10, 2023, B303094) 2023 WL 2445641 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms defense verdict in $40 million case alleging false financial statements, finding no prejudice from claimed instructional error
JPV I, L.P. v. Koetting (2023) 304 Cal.App.5th 550
Court of Appeal reverses denial of alter ego motion
Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s client, ordering enforcement of its Beverly Hills ground lease through 2102
Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054
Court of Appeal reverses order permitting statutory buyout of GMSR client’s interest in an LLC
Foxcroft Productions, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, LLC (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1119
On behalf of Columbo creators, GMSR persuades Court of Appeal to reinstate a fraud claim and keep alive a breach of contract claim involving Universal Studios’ failure to pay tens of millions in royalties
Baral v. Schnitt (Jan. 28, 2022, B298050) 2022 WL 263108 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal reverses $3.5 million jury award and JNOV denial, ordering entry of judgment for GMSR’s client
In re Castlepoint National Ins. Co. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 668
Court of Appeal revives GMSR’s clients’ $200 million claims
3500 Sepulveda, LLC v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 980 F.3d 1317
In published opinion, Ninth Circuit revives building owners’ easement complaint previously dismissed on summary judgment
Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130
GMSR wins landmark decision on unfair competition, tortious interference with contract
8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (May 28, 2020, B288963) 2020 WL 2765575 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial lease. Defendant argued the lease was unenforceable because it required he occupy an unlawful building and use it for an illegal purpose. His defense was premised on a theory that a portion of the building’s second story
© 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.