Jeffrey Gurrola
VCARD
Biography
GMSR partner Jeff Gurrola, a State Bar-certified appellate specialist, is a dedicated appellate lawyer who thrives on providing efficient, excellent legal analysis in high-pressure appeals and fast-paced writ proceedings. Having worked previously both as a trial litigator and as an in-house litigation attorney, Jeff has a deep understanding of the considerations his clients and their trial counsel face when considering and pursuing an appeal or writ petition.
Like his colleagues at GMSR, Jeff specializes in appeals but is a subject-matter generalist. He handles civil appeals and writ petitions in a wide spectrum of business and public entity disputes and cases involving tort law, contract law, family law, and consumer law, to name just a few. Jeff regularly briefs and argues appeals in both California and federal appellate courts. He also consults with trial attorneys before, during, and after trial to advise on key legal issues, assist in drafting dispositive post-trial motions, and help prepare the attorneys and clients to pursue or defend against any subsequent appeal.
In addition to serving his clients’ needs, Jeff assists GMSR partner Laurie Hepler in her role as Contributing Editor of Eisenberg, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group), the authoritative treatise on civil appellate practice in California. He regularly speaks to both large and small groups of trial lawyers to provide helpful appellate law developments and advice about how to prepare and preserve their trial record to increase their chances of prevailing in any future appeal.
Outside of work, Jeff enjoys traveling, hiking his way up tall mountains around California, and watching The Golden Girls with his husband and Honey, their three-legged dog.
Notable Wins
City of Santa Clarita v. Canyon View Limited (Aug. 13, 2024, B320230) 2024 WL 3822606
Reversed trial court’s judgment determining that hillside solar energy system violated local zoning regulations and ordering removal of the solar panels
City of Santa Clarita v. Canyon View Limited (Aug. 13, 2024, B320230) 2024 WL 3822606
Reversed trial court’s judgment determining that hillside solar energy system violated local zoning regulations and ordering removal of the solar panels
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment requiring panel removal. The court agreed with GMSR that the private yards within the park were open space. Because there was no permit violation within the park, the City could not require the client to remove the panels.
Riversiders Against Increased Taxes v. City of Riverside (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 250
Reversed trial court’s determination that local tax election did not comply with constitutional requirements
Riversiders Against Increased Taxes v. City of Riverside (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 250
Reversed trial court’s determination that local tax election did not comply with constitutional requirements
Agreeing with GMSR’s arguments on behalf of Riverside, the court held that for Proposition 218’s purposes, a “general election” is one occurring at regular intervals fixed by law, while a “special election” is one for which the time is not prescribed by law. Under that definition, the regularly scheduled City Council runoff election was a general election.
Campbell v. Budd (Oct. 18, 2022, B306687) 2022 WL 10252427
Declined to impose a duty on California landlords to replace code-compliant un-tempered glass doors
Campbell v. Budd (Oct. 18, 2022, B306687) 2022 WL 10252427
Declined to impose a duty on California landlords to replace code-compliant un-tempered glass doors
Campbell held that held that California law imposes no duty on landlords to identify and replace un-tempered sliding glass doors with tempered glass doors if the original glass doors were code-compliant when they were installed. It also affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of certain opinions by plaintiffs’ expert because they lacked foundation and contained inappropriate legal conclusions.
Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054
Held as a matter of first impression that members may dissolve an LLC by vote even if a judicial dissolution action is pending in court
Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054
Held as a matter of first impression that members may dissolve an LLC by vote even if a judicial dissolution action is pending in court
In a published opinion, the court held that, under the plain language of the Corporations Code, an LLC “is dissolved” upon the first of either a vote of 50% of the LLC’s membership interests or entry of a decree of judicial dissolution. Though a suit for judicial dissolution was pending, nothing in the statute prevented GMSR’s clients from pursuing the alternative voluntary dissolution by member vote.
Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Letwak & Bennett (May 16, 2022, G059646) 2022 WL 1534602
Upheld trial court’s imposition of approximately $300,000 in attorney fees relating to default judgment
Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Letwak & Bennett (May 16, 2022, G059646) 2022 WL 1534602
Upheld trial court’s imposition of approximately $300,000 in attorney fees relating to default judgment
In a 2013 lawsuit, GMSR’s bank client recovered a default judgment for damages and nearly $400,000 in attorney fees. Seven years later, the defendant moved to set aside the judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that there were procedural defects in the default judgment, and reduced the fee award to $2,500. The Court of Appeal reversed. Adopting GMSR’s arguments, it found that there were no procedural defects in the default judgment, and it reinstated the judgment and the full attorney fee award.
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2025 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.