California Supreme Court Watch
#19-184 Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., S258191. (9th Cir. No. 17-16096; 939 F.3d 1045; Northern District of California No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA.)
#19-184 Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., S258191. (9th Cir. No. 17-16096; 939 F.3d 1045; Northern District of California No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA.) Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the
#19-183 Doe v. Olson, S258498. (B286105; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC126806.)
#19-183 Doe v. Olson, S258498. (B286105; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC126806.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed and reversed orders in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the litigation privilege of Civil Code section
#19-188 Conservatorship of K.P., S258212. (B291510; 39 Cal.App.5th 254; Los Angeles County Superior Court; ZE032603.)
#19-188 Conservatorship of K.P., S258212. (B291510; 39 Cal.App.5th 254; Los Angeles County Superior Court; ZE032603.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Must the trier of fact find, beyond
#19-173 Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., S258019. (B289003; 38 Cal.App.5th 346; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC631510.)
#19-173 Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., S258019. (B289003; 38 Cal.App.5th 346; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC631510.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does a mortgage servicer owe a
#19-182 Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court, S258283. (D075217; 39 Cal.App.5th 530; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2017-00044865-CU-AT-CTL.)
#19-182 Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court, S258283. (D075217; 39 Cal.App.5th 530; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2017-00044865-CU-AT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen,
#19-157 Rivera v. Kent, S257304. (A147534; 37 Cal.App.5th 529; Alameda County Superior Court; RG14740911.)
#19-157 Rivera v. Kent, S257304. (A147534; 37 Cal.App.5th 529; Alameda County Superior Court; RG14740911.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does the state
#19-142 Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen, S256927. (9th Cir. No. 18-15258; 930 F.3d 1031; Eastern District of California No. 2:17-cv-00715-WBS-EFB.)
#19-142 Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen, S256927. (9th Cir. No. 18-15258; 930 F.3d 1031; Eastern District of California No. 2:17-cv-00715-WBS-EFB.) Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court
#19-139 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Amador Water Agency, S257009. (C082079; 36 Cal.App.5th 279, mod. 37 Cal.App.5th 164a; Amador County Superior Court; 16CV9564.)
#19-139 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Amador Water Agency, S257009. (C082079; 36 Cal.App.5th 279, mod. 37 Cal.App.5th 164a; Amador County Superior Court; 16CV9564.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision
#19-104 Shalabi v. City of Fontana, S256665. (E069671; 35 Cal.App.5th 639; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1314694.)
#19-104 Shalabi v. City of Fontana, S256665. (E069671; 35 Cal.App.5th 639; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1314694.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Code of Civil Procedure section
#19-120 Patterson v. Padilla, S257302.
#19-120 Patterson v. Padilla, S257302. Original proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause regarding the requirement in Elections Code sections 6883 and 6884 that candidates for a party’s nomination to be the President of the United States disclose their tax returns in order
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
© 2020 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
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.