Cynthia E. Tobisman
VCARD
Biography
Cindy Tobisman is a Co-Managing Partner of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland. During her many years specializing in appeals at GMSR, she has briefed and argued virtually every type of civil case. The only constants are her deep knowledge of appellate practice, her rigorous research, her careful record review, her creativity and her top-notch writing skills.
Cindy’s excellence as an appellate attorney has been repeatedly recognized. She received the President’s Award from the Beverly Hills Bar Association for her work on amicus briefs in the California Supreme Court on appellate issues of public interest. She’s been regularly included on the Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers’ lists of top appellate attorneys.
Cindy graduated Phi Beta Kappa from U.C. Berkeley in 1992, and was also named the top graduate in her department (Rhetoric). She subsequently attended U.C. Berkeley School of Law (J.D., 1998), serving on the prestigious Moot Court Board, focused on appellate advocacy. She has sat on the Board of Governors of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and has chaired the Association’s Amicus Briefs Committee.
In addition to practicing law, Cindy is a traditionally published novelist. She won the 2018 Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction for her second novel, “Proof.”
High-Impact Wins
Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 792
California Supreme Court: Vehicle consumers are entitled to full statutory restitution under California’s lemon law—without offset
Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 792
California Supreme Court: Vehicle consumers are entitled to full statutory restitution under California’s lemon law—without offset
The Court of Appeal below held that the statutory restitution remedy under California’s Lemon Law (the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) did not include the amount the plaintiff recovered after trading in a defective vehicle. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed, making new law. It held that “neither a trade-in credit nor sale proceeds reduce the statutory restitution remedy set forth in [Civil Code] section 1793.2, subdivision (d)(2) at least where, as here, a consumer has been forced to trade in or sell a defective vehicle due to the manufacturer’s failure to comply with the Act.”
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019, B281210) 2019 WL 1395963 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019, B281210) 2019 WL 1395963 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding. The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans. The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury. The principal issue on appeal was whether the trial court had erred in denying a jury trial and, if so, what the relief should be. The court accepted GMSR’s arguments that California law governed the jury waiver- because New York’s more permissive law was contrary to fundamental California policy. It also agreed that denial of a jury trial was a structural error and therefore reversible per se as to all of the clients’ claims, even equitable issues as to which they had no right to a jury.
Crosby v. HLC Properties, Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 597
Obtained Reversal
Crosby v. HLC Properties, Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 597
Obtained Reversal
Reversing adverse judgment on basis that prior settlement encompassed any claim for portion of Bing Crosby’s right of publicity.
HLC Properties, Ltd. v. MCA Records, Inc. (May 16, 2008, B191608) 2008 WL 2068155 [nonpublished opinion]
Obtained Reversal
HLC Properties, Ltd. v. MCA Records, Inc. (May 16, 2008, B191608) 2008 WL 2068155 [nonpublished opinion]
Obtained Reversal
Reversing adverse judgment on basis that prior settlement encompassed any claim for portion of Bing Crosby’s right of publicity.
Robins v. Roland (Mar. 7, 2018, B191659) 2008 WL 615865 [nonpublished opinion]
Obtained Reversal
Robins v. Roland (Mar. 7, 2018, B191659) 2008 WL 615865 [nonpublished opinion]
Obtained Reversal
Reversing multi-million dollar adverse judgment in partnership dispute.
Publications
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 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.