Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., S287404.
#24-232 Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., S287404. (A168803; 104 Cal.App.5th 1034; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC17557275.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed judgments in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Where
Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County, S283978.
#24-71 Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County, S283978. (B325277; 98 Cal.App.5th 1119; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; VENCI00546574.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following
Conservatorship of E.A., S287241.
#24-231 Conservatorship of E.A., S287241. (A169299; nonpublished opinion; Contra Costa County Superior Court; P2000896.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a conservatorship proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Must a conservatee demonstrate prejudice to establish that a 362-day
Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc., S290188.
#25-146 Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc., S290188. (D085025; 109 Cal.App.5th 621; Riverside County Superior Court; CVRI2303683.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Is a voluntary
In re Spielbauer on Discipline, S283172.
24-119 In re Spielbauer on Discipline, S283172. (__State Bar Court __; State Bar Ct. No. 19-O-30700.) Petitions for review after a State Bar Court recommendation of discipline of an attorney. This case presents the following issue: If a victim of attorney misconduct suffers damages recoverable
In re Marriage of Bowman, S296637.
#26-111 In re Marriage of Bowman, S296637. (B331924; 119 Cal.App.5th 922; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; FL108245.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: In awarding contractual
Doe v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission, S288552.
#25-41 Doe v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission, S288552. (H051515; nonpublished opinion; Santa Cruz County Superior Court; 20CV02149.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in J.M. v. Illuminate
Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, S283639.
#24-64 Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, S283639. (C095446; 98 Cal.App.5th 95; Yuba County Superior Court; CVPO2100697.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the plaintiffs’ second voluntary
Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation, S287414.
#24-260 Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation, S287414. (A167698; 104 Cal.App.5th 1135, mod. 105 Cal.App.5th 771; Contra Costa County Superior Court; N221503.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further proceedings. The court limited
Lencioni v. Cutrer, S296461.
#26-100 Lencioni v. Cutrer, S296461. (A173829; nonpublished opinion; Sonoma County Superior Court; 25CV01328.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is the denial of permanent injunctive relief appealable under Code of Civil
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.
GMSR represents insurers on appeal effectively and efficiently. We also collaborate with our clients and trial counsel on strategy for coverage, contribution and bad faith litigation before appeals begin.
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.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 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.