- Client Services
- Appellate Insights
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (April 24, 2017, Ninth Circuit No. 15-56606) __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 1431084. This landmark preemption decision will benefit municipalities across the country. Two disabled persons sued GMSR’s client, the City of Los Angeles, under Title II
In a second attempt by a restaurant owner to sue GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, for allegedly imposing excessive and illegal health inspection fees, GMSR again prevailed in obtaining an affirmance of the judgment in the County’s favor based on res judicata principles.
An insured of GMSR’s client, Farmers Insurance, was injured when another driver rear-ended his car. He sued the other driver, and she sued him back, not for the accident, but for an alleged verbal assault that occurred after the accident. Farmers declined to defend the
An insured and his wife held two policies with a particular insurer, GMSR’s client: a homeowners’ policy covering their own home and a special-dwelling policy covering a subdivided rental home. The insured also had an auto coverage policy with a different carrier. Both houses were
GMSR’s clients, the creators and producers of the hit television show Home Improvement, sued Disney for underpaying their profit participation. Disney obtained summary judgment on the basis of an “incontestability clause” in its contract with plaintiffs that, Disney claimed and the trial court found, absolutely
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Great American Ins. Co. (Mar. 1, 2017, B264238). Hundreds of diners developed hepatitis, and several died, after consuming tainted green onions. Two insurers of a company in the distribution chain agreed to transfer control of (at least) that
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Feb. 27, 2017, B263095) __ Cal.App.5th __. A physician sued a hospital and some doctors, alleging that the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges was motivated by retaliatory animus. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the suit under the anti-SLAPP statute.
L.A. County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (Dec. 29, 2016, S226645). In a 4-3 decision in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU) the California Supreme Court agreed with GMSR’s client in holding that everything in attorney invoices in pending cases,
Malbrue v. County of Los Angeles, 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8977. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful death of his father who died while in police custody. The court granted summary judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, after plaintiff failed timely to introduce
Santa Clarita Org. for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1084. In a published opinion, Division 2 of the Second DCA upheld the right of GMSR’s client, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, to acquire all of the stock of a privately
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.
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.