#22-170 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340. (G058397, G058969; 76 Cal.App.5th 685; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2013-00692890.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the
#22-158 Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, S274147. (D079451; 76 Cal.App.5th 43; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 19CV346911.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the
#22-157 Himes v. Somatics, LLC, S273887. (9th Cir. No. 21-55517; 29 F.4th 1125; Central District of California; D.C. No. 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-JC.) 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
#22-141 Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., S273802. (B309408; 75 Cal.App.5th 365; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV25987.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. This case includes the following issues: Did
#22-140 Gantner v. PG&E Corporation, S273340. (9th Cir. No. 21-15571; 26 F.4th 1085; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 4:20-cv-02584-HSG.) 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
#22-134 Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, S269099. Original proceeding. The court issued a writ of review regarding notice and due process requirements in proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission. (See also California-American Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, S271493.) Alternative writ issued:
#22-132 California-American Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, S271493. Original proceeding. The court issued a writ of review regarding notice and due process requirements in proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission. (See also Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, S269099.) Alternative writ issued:
#22-130 Balistreri v. Balistreri, S273909. (A162222; 75 Cal.App.5th 511; San Francisco County Superior Court; PTR20303610.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a probate proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Haggerty v. Thornton, S271483 (#21-562), which presents
#22-117 Winick v. Noble LA Events, S273374. (B305697; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC569126.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, S273368
#22-108 TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, S273368. (B303300; 74 Cal.App.5th 239; Los Angeles County Superior Court; PC056615.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) When a trial court denies a
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.
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.
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.