Stefan Caris Love
VCARD
Biography
Stefan Caris Love’s unique background helps him win appeals for his clients.
At GMSR, Stefan has briefed appeals to the California Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Supreme Court on subjects ranging from long-term lease contracts to insurance coverage of pandemic-related losses to loan forgery. In June 2022—just three years after graduating law school—Stefan argued a case before the California Supreme Court. The Court appointed Stefan and GMSR partner Jeff Raskin to brief and argue this immigration case pro bono; in the case’s unusual posture, no party was adverse to the petition for review, so to improve its decisionmaking, the Court brought in Stefan and Jeff to articulate the best arguments in favor of affirmance.
Before joining GMSR, Stefan clerked for Judge Paul J. Watford at the Ninth Circuit. As a clerk, he honed his writing skills and saw up close how judges decide cases. His writing about the law has appeared in California Litigation, Law360, The Business Lawyer, UCLA Law Review, and UCLA’s Journal of Law and Technology. He graduated first in his class from the UCLA School of Law.
But before he became a lawyer, Stefan was a professor of music theory, most recently on a tenure track at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Teaching music theory has proven to be apt preparation for appellate advocacy, as both require incisive analysis of difficult concepts. Indeed, Stefan has yet to encounter a legal issue more daunting than music theory at its most arcane.
Outside of work, Stefan enjoys playing the piano, cooking, and spending time with his wife and two sons.
High-Impact Wins
Endeavor Operating Company, LLC v. HDI Global Insurance Company (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 839
Affirmed that COVID-19-related business losses are not covered by commercial property insurance
Endeavor Operating Company, LLC v. HDI Global Insurance Company (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 839
Affirmed that COVID-19-related business losses are not covered by commercial property insurance
Endeavor Operating Co. sued its commercial property insurer, GMSR’s client, for coverage of its losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging that government closure orders or the presence of virus particles constituted “direct physical loss or damage” to property. The California Court of Appeal affirmed demurrer dismissal—in a published decision issued the day after oral argument. The court joined the majority of prior decisions on the issue to reject Endeavor’s view of “direct physical loss or damage” and deny coverage.
Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 24
Affirmed dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 24
Affirmed dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
Affirming in a published decision that quoted from GMSR’s brief, the Court of Appeal agreed that Starlight’s property did not undergo direct physical loss. Four other appellate courts in the state had held likewise—but GMSR was briefing to California’s most resistant appellate division on pandemic-coverage issues, with two published decisions reversing dismissal of policyholder lawsuits on a related issue. This time, the court affirmed for GMSR’s client.
Banc of California National Association v. Federal Insurance Company (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022, No. 21-56179) 2022 WL 17583056
Reversed defense summary judgment and allowed bank to proceed with $15 million insurance coverage claim arising from loan to customer who forged key document
Banc of California National Association v. Federal Insurance Company (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022, No. 21-56179) 2022 WL 17583056
Reversed defense summary judgment and allowed bank to proceed with $15 million insurance coverage claim arising from loan to customer who forged key document
GMSR’s client, a bank, issued a $15 million loan based on a forged document. After the borrower defaulted, the bank sued its forgery insurer for coverage, but the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit adopted GMSR’s argument that the forged document was of a type covered by the insurance and allowed the suit to proceed.
Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12
Affirmed validity of prime Beverly Hills commercial lease through 2102
Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 12
Affirmed validity of prime Beverly Hills commercial lease through 2102
GMSR’s client took over the ground lease of a prime Beverly Hills commercial property in 2003 and agreed with the landlord to extend the lease through 2123. Ten years later, the landlord sued to invalidate the entire lease based on a statute invalidating urban leases longer than 99 years. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the lease should only be shortened, and by only 21 years, thus validating the lease through 2102 and awarding GMSR’s client $1.5 million in restitution. It also reversed the trial court’s failure to consider awarding interest on the restitution award, remanding for the trial court to decide this issue.
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2023 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.