California Supreme Court Watch
#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
#19-22 Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc., S253295. (A152692; 29 Cal.App.5th 203; Alameda County Superior Court; RG16838191.)
#19-22 Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc., S253295. (A152692; 29 Cal.App.5th 203; Alameda County Superior Court; RG16838191.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Was a witness’s testimony about his recollection of
#19-21 Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn., S252988. (A152100; 29 Cal.App.5th 846; Contra Costa County Superior Court; MSN161730.)
#19-21 Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn., S252988. (A152100; 29 Cal.App.5th 846; Contra Costa County Superior Court; MSN161730.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending
#19-15 Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir, S252915. (C082664; 29 Cal.App.5th 158; Siskiyou County Superior Court; SCCVPT16549.)
#19-15 Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir, S252915. (C082664; 29 Cal.App.5th 158; Siskiyou County Superior Court; SCCVPT16549.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ of mandate, reversed and remanded with directions in a civil action. This case presents the following issue:
#19-10 Certified Tire & Auto Service Center Wage & Hour Cases, S252517. (D072265; 28 Cal.App.5th 1; San Diego County Superior Court; JCCP4762.)
#19-10 Certified Tire & Auto Service Center Wage & Hour Cases, S252517. (D072265; 28 Cal.App.5th 1; San Diego County Superior Court; JCCP4762.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in
#19-09 Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., S252796. (D070431; 28 Cal.App.5th 381; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00012901-CU-PO-CTL.)
#19-09 Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., S252796. (D070431; 28 Cal.App.5th 381; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00012901-CU-PO-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Can a company that hires an independent contractor
#19-07 In re Clifford Allen Brace, Jr., S252473. (9th Cir. No. 17-60032; 908 F.3d 531; Central District of California; BAP No. 16-1041.)
#19-07 In re Clifford Allen Brace, Jr., S252473. (9th Cir. No. 17-60032; 908 F.3d 531; Central District of California; BAP No. 16-1041.) Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in
#18-173 National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, S252445. (A149328; 27 Cal.App.5th 937, mod, 28 Cal.App.5th 372e; Alameda County Superior Court; RG15785743.)
#18-173 National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, S252445. (A149328; 27 Cal.App.5th 937, mod, 28 Cal.App.5th 372e; Alameda County Superior Court; RG15785743.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the
#18-171 Bottini v. City of San Diego, S252217. (D071670; 27 Cal.App.5th 281; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2013-00075491-CU-WM-CTL.)
#18-171 Bottini v. City of San Diego, S252217. (D071670; 27 Cal.App.5th 281; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2013-00075491-CU-WM-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does the “substantially advances” formula used
#18-170 Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, S251822. (B280526; 26 Cal.App.5th 759; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC548468.)
#18-170 Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, S251822. (B280526; 26 Cal.App.5th 759; 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
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.
© 2019 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
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
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.