Edward L. Xanders (“Ted”)
VCARD
Biography
Ted Xanders is a Co-Managing Partner of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland. For over almost three decades, he has helped trial counsel, corporate counsel, individuals, public entities, and insurers in both trial and appellate courts. His services include preparing summary judgment and post-judgment motions, monitoring trials, and ultimately preparing successful appellate briefs.
Ted has successfully represented clients in appeals and writs that span the legal spectrum, including administrative law, antitrust, bankruptcy, business contract and tort, employment, entertainment, family law and leave, government tort liability, immigration, insurance, legal and medical malpractice, personal injury, products liability, real property, and unfair business practices. He joined the team of appellate lawyers at GMSR in 1997, after seven years as a business litigator with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
He is a member of the election-only California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and he is on the Board of Directors and Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee for the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC). He received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1989, where he was a finalist in the William Minor Lile appellate moot court competition, received the Johnson & Swanson award for appellate advocacy, and was Notes Editor for the Journal of Law & Politics. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree (Political Science) magna cum laude from Duke University in 1985. Ted is an avid world traveler, backpacker, and photographer, and has visited over fifty countries.
Notable Wins
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company (2025) 332 Cal.Rptr.3d 438 [previously published at 111 Cal.App.5th 62]
GMSR wins published reversal of defense judgment and remand for new trial of carrier’s $5 million fraud claim
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company (2025) 332 Cal.Rptr.3d 438 [previously published at 111 Cal.App.5th 62]
GMSR wins published reversal of defense judgment and remand for new trial of carrier’s $5 million fraud claim
The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered a new trial on Truck’s fraudulent concealment claim. It adopted GMSR’s argument that Federal’s fraud was extrinsic—Truck did not unreasonably neglect to discover the fraud in the first lawsuit—and held that the litigation privilege therefore did not bar Truck’s claim.
Ryan v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 337
GMSR wins reversal of $5.3+ million judgment (damages plus attorney fees) in whistleblower retaliation action
Ryan v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 337
GMSR wins reversal of $5.3+ million judgment (damages plus attorney fees) in whistleblower retaliation action
In a partially published opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed with GMSR that the County was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict on the False Claims Act claim. It concluded as a matter of law that the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision did not apply because the County is a public entity. The Court of Appeal returned just one claim to the trial court that had been dismissed at the demurrer stage—and in doing so, it observed that many issues, including the surgeon’s claim that his termination was wrongful, have already been resolved.
Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 62, review pending, S289391
GMSR obtains reversal for the Town of Apple Valley in water system takings case
Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 62, review pending, S289391
GMSR obtains reversal for the Town of Apple Valley in water system takings case
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed on four separate grounds and directed the trial court to conduct further proceedings. The Court reasoned: (1) the trial court applied the wrong standard of review, failing to afford proper deference to the Town’s findings; (2) in any event, the trial court failed to apply its own chosen standard of review correctly; (3) the trial court erred in improperly basing its decision on facts arising after the Town adopted its resolutions of necessity; and (4) the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked the power to remand the matter back to the Town to consider post-resolution events.
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 67
GMSR secured a significant win in the California Supreme Court on behalf of its client, Truck Insurance Exchange. The Court resolved a key insurance coverage ...
Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School District (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 64
GMSR wins reversal and remand of $1.75 million judgment against school district, with instructions to hold trial on apportionment of fault
Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School District (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 64
GMSR wins reversal and remand of $1.75 million judgment against school district, with instructions to hold trial on apportionment of fault
In the published portion of the decision, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the primary assumption of risk doctrine but did err in instructing the jury not to conduct a comparative fault allocation. Embracing the reasoning of Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1, the Court of Appeal held that a Proposition 51 comparative fault allocation is required even where the negligent tortfeasor failed to prevent a co-tortfeasor’s intentional misconduct.
Gamerberg v. 3000 E. 11th St., LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 424
Court of Appeal reverses judgment against GMSR’s client, and holds good faith purchasers are not bound by irrevocable licenses
Gamerberg v. 3000 E. 11th St., LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 424
Court of Appeal reverses judgment against GMSR’s client, and holds good faith purchasers are not bound by irrevocable licenses
The trial court relied on language in Noronha v. Stewart (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 485 (Noronha) that notice is not required for an irrevocable license to bind successors in interest. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against GMSR’s client and directed the trial court to enter judgment in its favor. It agreed with GMSR that the “[t]he analysis in Noronha is flawed” and that Supreme Court precedent and longstanding real property principles confirm that an irrevocable license is only binding on successors who purchase with actual or constructive notice of the license.
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Reversal of $13.9 million jury award with directions for entry of defense judgment
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Reversal of $13.9 million jury award with directions for entry of defense judgment
Mr. Xanders persuaded the California Court of Appeal to reverse a $13.9 million jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff injured in a car accident with a deputy public defender who was on his way home from work. In an important published decision regarding the “going and coming” rule, the Court of Appeal held there was insufficient evidence that on the day of the accident the employer benefitted from the car’s use or required the employee to commute in his car.
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149
Reversal of ADA preemption ruling precluding city’s contribution claims
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149
Reversal of ADA preemption ruling precluding city’s contribution claims
In a landmark preemption decision that will benefit municipalities across the country, Mr. Xanders persuaded the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s ruling that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act preempted a municipality’s state law claims for breach of contract and express indemnity against the contractors who designed and built the deficient public facility.
Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298
Reversal of non-suit and affirmance of jury award, establishing groundbreaking movie-royalty precedent.
Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298
Reversal of non-suit and affirmance of jury award, establishing groundbreaking movie-royalty precedent.
Mr. Xanders, along with Robert Olson, obtained affirmance of a multi-million dollar licensing-fee judgment in favor of a well-known film producer. The appellate court’s published decision holds that a movie studio unfairly allocated licensing fees by engaging in an industry practice known as “straight lining.” In an across-the-board win for the producer, the court also (in an unpublished portion) reversed a non-suit on the producer’s fraud and other claims and remanded those matters for trial.
Eddins v. Redstone (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 290
Extent to which pricing under revenue-sharing agreement between studios and video distributor violates California’s Unfair Practices Act
Eddins v. Redstone (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 290
Extent to which pricing under revenue-sharing agreement between studios and video distributor violates California’s Unfair Practices Act
The Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment against GMSR’s clients, independent video retailers. It held that they could properly sue major Hollywood studios and Blockbuster Video for violating California’s Unfair Practices Act by favored revenue-sharing pricing of videotapes at the expense of independent retailers.
Tradewinds Escrow, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 704
Escrow agent’s commercial general liability policy covered only accidental occurrences, not professional negligence
Tradewinds Escrow, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 704
Escrow agent’s commercial general liability policy covered only accidental occurrences, not professional negligence
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of GMSR’s client, a commercial liability insurer, in an action for breach of contract and bad faith based on the client’s refusal to defend a third party action against the insured escrow agent, holding that the commercial general liability policy provided coverage only for accidental occurrences, not professional negligence.
Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109
Reversal of summary judgment, establishing statewide real property precedent.
Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109
Reversal of summary judgment, establishing statewide real property precedent.
The Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment against realtors, relying primarily on arguments in Mr. Xanders’ amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of a realtors’ association. The published decision holds that real estate brokers sued by home buyers for failing to disclose material defects can file indemnity cross-claims against home inspectors for their proportionate fault.
DeCuir v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 75
Reversal of jury verdict, establishing statewide precedent limiting suits against public entities.
DeCuir v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 75
Reversal of jury verdict, establishing statewide precedent limiting suits against public entities.
Mr. Xanders persuaded the Court of Appeal to reverse a jury award against a municipality with directions to enter judgment in the municipality’s favor. The published decision holds that unsuccessful applicants for civil service positions can challenge the proceedings only in ordinary mandamus, not civil suits.
Publications
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2026 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
Orange County
555 Anton Blvd, Suite 150
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
P: (310) 859-7811
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.