Cases

GMSR has an enviable record of success on appeal. For your convenience, the firm has provided a simple search tool for guests and clients to search that record.

564 Case Results
Filter

Johnson v. Williams (July 7, 2021, C088920) 2021 WL 2819851 [nonpublished opinion]

GMSR’s client admitted negligence arising out of a low speed rear-end collision, but denied that plaintiffs suffered any resulting damages.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury’s judgment of no damages, and rejected the claim that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing questions

Jean-Louis v. City of Riverside (9th Cir., June 15, 2021, No. 19-55175) __Fed.Appx.__, 2021 WL 2433615

Louis Jean-Louis sued the City of Riverside, City officials, and City employees, alleging a scheme to place houses into receivership by levying excessive fines for violating City ordinances. The district court dismissed Jean-Louis’ suit on res judicata grounds, because Jean-Louis had previously settled and dismissed

In re Castlepoint National Ins. Co. (June 15, 2021, A158646) __Cal.App.5th__ [2021 WL 2431011]

A group of New York investment companies turned to GMSR when a California trial court—citing agreements and injunctions in a prior insurance company liquidation—barred most of their $200 million New York lawsuit from proceeding. Facing off against both the California Insurance Commissioner and the New

The Claremont Colleges, Inc. v. Southern Cal. School of Theology (June 4, 2021, B301897, B304065) 2021 WL 2283010 [nonpublished opinion]

GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, sought enforcement of the buy-back terms in a 1957 land sale agreement with the Claremont School of Theology (CST). In the 1957 agreement, CST promised that the land would be used for educational purposes only, and if CST ever wanted

Southern Cal. School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (May 3, 2021, B302452) 2021 WL1731232 [nonpublished opinion]

This was the second appeal arising from efforts by GMSR’s client, the Claremont Colleges, to enforce the buy-back terms of a 1957 land sale agreement with the Claremont School of Theology (CST). (See first appeal.) Although the Colleges prevailed overall, CST recovered fees for an

MAG Aerospace Industries v. Precise Aerospace Manufacturing (9th Cir., April 26, 2021, No. 19-55932) __ Fed.Appx. __ [2021 WL 1997955]

GMSR represents Precise Aerospace Manufacturing, Inc., a company that makes plastic parts from specialized molds owned by plaintiff MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC. MAG sued Precise for not delivering parts and molds on time and, after a bench trial, recovered $1.3 million it incurred in efforts

Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (March 22, 2021, B292794) 2021 WL 1084783 [nonpublished opinion]

A physician brought administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a medical peer review determination that upheld the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges.  His mandamus arguments, however, challenged a different decision than what the parties had agreed the peer review hearing committee would decide—the

Varney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (9th Cir. 2021) 838 Fed.Appx. 777816

Plaintiff’s attorney in this asbestos case presented a declaration just before plaintiff’s death, purporting to identify the manufacturers of products he was exposed to decades earlier. Plaintiff signed the document the day before he died. The Ninth Circuit held that the document did not fit

County of Los Angeles Department of Health v. Superior Court (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 478

In a published opinion, the Second District Court of Appeal has granted GMSR’s petition for a writ of mandate on behalf of the County of Los Angeles and its Health Officers. The Court reversed a superior court injunction barring the County from enforcing a Covid-19

Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078

GMSR convinced the Court of Appeal to reverse a $15 million punitive damages award against GMSR’s client in a case involving alleged exposure to asbestos-cement pipe. The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was an exception to the “officer, director, or managing agent”