#23-110 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., S279397. (B256232; 88 Cal.App.5th 937; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC372146.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue:
#23-24 Figueroa v. FCA USA, LLC, S277547. (B306275, B308339; 84 Cal.App.5th 708; Ventura County Superior Court; 56-2018-00507038-CU-BC-VTA.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC,
#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
#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
#23-2 Ruelas v. County of Alameda, S277120. (9th Cir. No. 21-16528; 51 F.4th 1187; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST.) 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
#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.