California Supreme Court Watch
Share
#21-185 Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, S267453.
#21-185 Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, S267453. (B293670; 60 Cal.App.5th 423; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC633651.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following
#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
#19-23 Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., S253458. (B276420, B279838; 29 Cal.App.5th 778; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC496090, BC594050.)
#19-23 Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., S253458. (B276420, B279838; 29 Cal.App.5th 778; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC496090, BC594050.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Should the
#20-66 People v. Clark, S260202.
#20-66 People v. Clark, S260202. (G055874; 43 Cal.App.5th 270; Orange County Superior Court; 15NF1695). Review, which had been granted and held for People v. Moses (2020) 10 Cal.5th 893, was dismissed. Dismissed and remanded to CA 4/3: 03/24/2021
#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:
#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
#18-166 Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co., S252035. (H041870; 26 Cal.App.5th 1092; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV173356.)
#18-166 Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co., S252035. (H041870; 26 Cal.App.5th 1092; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV173356.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Insurance Code section
#20-379 Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC, S264821.
#20-379 Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC, S264821. (B296738; 53 Cal.App.5th 1189; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC718750.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a civil action and remanded with directions. This case
#19-31 Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, S253677. (D071865; 29 Cal.App.5th 1968; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00012605-CU-OE-CTL.)
#19-31 Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, S253677. (D071865; 29 Cal.App.5th 1968; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00012605-CU-OE-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Can employers utilize practices upheld in the
#21-130 Prang v. Amen, S266590.
#21-130 Prang v. Amen, S266590. (B298794; 58 Cal.App.5th 246; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS173698.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the term “stock” in Revenue and Taxation Code
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.
© 2021 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.