VCARDBiography
Alana Rotter, a partner at GMSR, is a go-to lawyer for civil appeals and writ petitions in a wide range of substantive areas. Clients and trial lawyers seek her out for her clear writing, thorough research, and efficiency. Alana respects client relationships, and is adept at working hand-in-hand with trial lawyers.
Certified as an appellate specialist by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, Alana helps clients—including public entities, insurers, businesses, and individuals—defend their victories and reverse adverse rulings in the California appellate courts and the Ninth Circuit. She excels at developing new legal arguments, and at drafting incisive briefs and writ petitions that resonate with appellate judges. Clients also hire Alana to provide guidance at the trial court level, where she assists with dispositive motions and advises lawyers on preserving issues for appeal. Such early interventions by a leading appellate lawyer can be critical to a future appeal.
Alana has an insider perspective on the appellate system, having clerked for Judge Kermit Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She received her law degree from Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
High Impact Wins
Easley v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2018) 890 F.3d 851
Court affirms qualified immunity for police officer
Easley v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2018) 890 F.3d 851
Court affirms qualified immunity for police officer
Finding that a police officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s pre-trial grant of qualified immunity.
Breeden v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7216
Reversed erroneous denials of summary judgment
Breeden v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7216
Reversed erroneous denials of summary judgment
Summary judgment is a double win for defendants: Not only does it dispose of the case, it also saves the time and expense of a trial. Alana has successfully petitioned the Court of Appeal to reverse erroneous denials of summary judgment and to order the entry of judgment in her clients’ favor—in Breeden, based on the occupational assumption of risk doctrine, and in Coffee House, based on a lack of evidence on causation.
Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721
Protected $269 million damages award
Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721
Protected $269 million damages award
Obtained affirmance of $269 million damages award for the creators of the hit television show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, successfully arguing that the creator was contractually entitled to 50% of net profits and that substantial evidence supported the award.
Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980
Clarified trade secrets law
Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980
Clarified trade secrets law
Alana obtained a writ of mandate reinstating her client’s trade secret misappropriation claims after the trial court erroneously ruled that the client lost standing to pursue the claims when it sold the trade secrets to a third party but reserved its interest in the litigation. The Court of Appeal agreed with Alana’s position that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not impose a “current ownership” standing requirement.
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2019 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
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.