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.

525 Case Results
Filter

FOROUGH ETELAEI, as Trustee, et al., v. FIRST GENERAL BANK (Cal. Ct. App., June 18, 2019, No. B287186) 2019 WL 2511405

The issue on appeal was whether evidence of the homeowner’s execution of a written agreement with a third party ratified the third party’s previously unauthorized execution of a trust deed on her home.  Since a trust deed must be in writing, under the “equal dignities

Bleich v. Bleich (June 17, 2018, B287236) [nonpub. opn.].

Relying on Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, plaintiffs sued their uncle, GMSR’s client, in civil court for intentionally interfering with their expectation of inheritance.  They claimed their uncle intentionally exerted undue influence over his parents and interfered with his mother’s desires to leave

Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Cunningham (No. C076994, June 7, 2019). (Westlaw: 2019 WL 2402272)

An LLC obtained a loan and its principal personally guaranteed repayment. Later, the lender entered FDIC receivership, and the FDIC sold all of its assets, including the loan, to another bank. After the borrower-LLC defaulted, the successor bank sued to enforce the guaranty. The guarantor

Branca v. El-Amin (Cal.Ct.App., May 16, 2019, No. B282375) 2019 WL 2136114

Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 15% of The Michael Jackson Company in a middle-of-the-night meeting in 2006. After a long bench trial, the probate court rejected those claims on multiple grounds and confirmed that Jackson wholly owned the company. The Court of

Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC et al. v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2019, No. B281210) 2019 WL 1395963.

GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding.  The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans.  The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury. 

United Farmers Agents Association, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 478

An insurance agent trade association sued seeking a declaration that GMSR’s insurance company client can only discipline or terminate its agents for cause (which did not include how the agency was operated) and asserted that the governing Agency Appointment Agreements were unconscionable in allowing either

O’Gara Coach Company, LLC v. Ra (Jan. 7, 2019, B286730) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2019 WL 117220]

Before he became an attorney, the principal attorney in the law firm now representing a former employee against his employer was the employer’s president and chief operating officer.  He supervised outside attorneys conducting an investigation of the conduct that led to the employee’s dismissal.  The

Pryor et al. v. Fitness International, LLC (Jan. 3, 2019, No. B287329) [2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 48]

An employee of GMSR’s client, a health club, took heroin during his work-shift.  Finding him no longer fit to perform his job, the health club’s manager ordered him to leave the premises.  The intoxicated employee then drove away from the club striking and mortally injuring

Pacific Western Bank v. Audio-Visual Entertainment, Inc. et al., No. B278122, and Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions Inc., et al., No. B278076

GMSR’s client, a bank, sued borrowers and a guarantor to collect on long-outstanding loans. The borrowers and guarantor attempted to avoid liability by challenging the admissibility of the bank’s evidence of the loans, chain of title, and outstanding balance.  The trial court granted summary judgment

Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 102

Plaintiff sued a general contractor for defective construction work at the Anaheim hotel she owned; the general contractor cross-complained against a group of subcontractors.  After settling with the general contractor, plaintiff substituted in as the real party in interest on the general contractor’s cross-complaint and