#23-265 JRK Property Holdings, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., S282657. (B321806; 96 Cal.App.5th 1; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 21STCV19983.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further
#23-260 Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club, S282264. (B315302; 95 Cal.App.5th 240; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 19STCV22806.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May a maritime worker described by
#23-256 Lockton Companies v. Superior Court, S282136. (B328408; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 22STCV39876.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, S282521
#23-255 Krug v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S282131. (B320588; 94 Cal.App.5th 1158; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 21STCV14538.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Stone
#23-251 Endeavor Operating Co., LLC v. HDI Global Ins. Co., S282533. (B323865; 96 Cal.App.5th 420; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 21STCV23693.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Another
#23-247 EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, S282521. (D081670; 95 Cal.App.5th 890, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 1320a; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2022-00015228-CUBT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a civil action. This case presents the following
#23-246 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S282013. (E079076; 94 Cal.App.5th 464; Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board; ADJ1360597.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled and remanded the decision in a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board proceeding. This case presents
#23-243 In re. L.J., S282333. (E080296; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; J287021.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a juvenile dependency proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in In re Ja.O., S280572 (#23-153), which presents
#23-240 Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers, S282173. (A165320; 94 Cal.App.5th 1128, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 931b; Sonoma County Superior Court; SCV268956.) The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., S271721 (#22-03), which presents the following issue: Does a plaintiff in a representative action
#23-238 Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (Hiltachk), S281977. Original proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government
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.