California Supreme Court Watch
Share
#14-130 Galen v. Redfin Corp., S220936. (A138642; 227 Cal.App.4th 1525; Alameda County Superior Court; RG13663672.)
#14-130 Galen v. Redfin Corp., S220936. (A138642; 227 Cal.App.4th 1525; Alameda County Superior Court; RG13663672.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez
#20-51 Daly v. Board of Supervisors, S260209. (E073730; nonpublished order; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1833846.)
#20-51 Daly v. Board of Supervisors, S260209. (E073730; nonpublished order; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1833846.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of supersedeas. This case includes the following issues: (1) Are a judgment and the enforcement of
#20-110 Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, S260736. (B280526; 44 Cal.App.5th 103; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC548468.)
#20-110 Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, S260736. (B280526; 44 Cal.App.5th 103; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC548468.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order granting in part and denying in part a special motion to
#20-01 Brown v. USA Taekwondo, S259216. (B280550; 40 Cal.App.5th 1077, mod. 41 Cal.App.5th 567a, mod. 41 Cal.App.5th 567d; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC599321.)
#20-01 Brown v. USA Taekwondo, S259216. (B280550; 40 Cal.App.5th 1077, mod. 41 Cal.App.5th 567a, mod. 41 Cal.App.5th 567d; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC599321.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue:
#20-98 Smith v. Loanme, Inc., S260391. (E069752; 43 Cal.App.5th 844; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1612501.)
#20-98 Smith v. Loanme, Inc., S260391. (E069752; 43 Cal.App.5th 844; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1612501.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does Penal Code section 632.7 prohibit only third-party eavesdroppers from
#20-22 Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court, S259850. (B297195; 42 Cal.App.5th 148, mod. 42 Cal.App.5th 1173a; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 18CV02968.)
#20-22 Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court, S259850. (B297195; 42 Cal.App.5th 148, mod. 42 Cal.App.5th 1173a; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 18CV02968.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the
#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
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.