#24-91 Davis v. Nissan North America, S284697. (D083006; 100 Cal.App.5th 825; Riverside County Superior Court; CVRI2203733.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Ford Motor Warranty Cases,
#24-82 Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, S284486. (B315884; 99 Cal.App.5th 1280; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP4884.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded with directions. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Madrigal
#24-81 Whitehead v. City of Oakland, S284303. (A164483; 99 Cal.App.5th 775; Alameda County Superior Court; RG18896233.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does a liability release agreement between a bicyclist
#24-80 In re Bradshaw on Discipline, S282314. (Unpublished opinion; State Bar Ct. No. 16-O-15558.) Petition for review after a State Bar Court recommendation of discipline of an attorney. This case presents the following issue: What is the appropriate discipline in light of the record in
#24-79 Morales v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, S284011. (B312212, B316290; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC645205, JCCP4975, RG17881136.) Petition for review after the CA affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,
#24-77 Gilead Tenofovir Cases, S283862. (A165558; 98 Cal.App.5th 911, mod. 99 Cal.App.5th 196a; San Francisco County Superior Court; CJC19005043.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part a petition for writ of mandate. This case presents the following
#24-76 Lockton Investment Advisors v. Superior Court, S283963. (B334130; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 22STCV23460.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. Petition for review granted; briefing deferred: 4/24/2024 Further action in this matter is
#24-75 Lockton Companies, LLC – Pacific Series v. Superior Court, S283932. (B334428; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 23STCV24107.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. Petition for review granted; briefing deferred: 4/24/2024 Further action in
#24-71 Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County, S283978. (B325277; 98 Cal.App.5th 1119; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; VENCI00546574.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following
#24-65 Agnone v. Agnone, S284051. (B321252; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BD659645.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, S277211
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.