California Supreme Court Watch

Dec 07, 2019
#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

Dec 07, 2019
#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

Dec 07, 2019
#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

Nov 13, 2019
#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

Nov 13, 2019
#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,

Oct 21, 2019
#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

Sep 24, 2019
#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

Sep 09, 2019
#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

Sep 09, 2019
#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

Sep 09, 2019
#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

PUBLIC ENTITIES

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.

Read More
INSURERS

Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.

Read More
BUSINESSES

GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.

Read More
TRIAL COUNSEL

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.

Read More
INDIVIDUALS

GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.

Read More