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.
B.Q. v. Mesa Union School Dist. (Cal.App., Dec. 2, 2020, No. B303351) 2020 WL 7052293 [nonpublished opinion]
On the heels of a Ninth Circuit victory relating to the same events, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a student’s discrimination claim for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. Deciding an issue of first impression, the Second District
Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (Nov. 30, 2020, No. B296593) __Cal.App.5th__ [2020 WL 7706321]
A jury awarded plaintiff, a kitchen worker at a community college, $3.4 million, including $2.775 million in noneconomic damages and over $500,000 in attorneys’ fees, for the failure to accommodate and to engage in the interactive process relating to two physical conditions: carpal tunnel syndrome
3500 Sepulveda, LLC v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (9th Cir., Nov. 20, 2020, No. 18-56620) __F.3d___, 2020 WL 6815082
GMSR’s clients, who own a building in the Manhattan Village shopping center, agreed with defendant owner of the remainder of the center to a revitalization construction project that would increase the amount of parking near the clients’ building. Soon, the defendant began making significant changes
Mata v. Liberty Utilities (Nov. 19, 2020, B293479) 2020 WL ___ [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff claimed take-home asbestos injury from his father’s job at GMSR’s client, a water utility, where the father occasionally cut asbestos pipe. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court struck the punitive damages on the ground that there was no evidence that
Yu v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (October 27, 2020) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2020 WL 6281295]
Plaintiff sued GMSR’s clients for wrongful foreclosure after they purchased a real property loan on which plaintiff had defaulted. The matter proceeded to a judicial reference, which resulted in a determination by the referee that GMSR’s clients were liable for millions in both compensatory and
B.Q. v. Dekok (9th Cir. 2020) 825 Fed.Appx. 533
Plaintiff, a seventh-grade student, claimed that a teacher’s use of inaccurate and negative translations of Sharia law to teach a unit on religion to students violated the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that the teacher was entitled to qualified immunity because
Hawkins v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (October 8, 2020, B295675) 2020 WL ___ [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff alleged that she suffered injury from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) at her apartment building, to which GMSR’s client Southern California Edison provided power. Edison successfully demurred based on directly controlling California Supreme Court authority—San Diego Gas and Electric Company v. Superior Court (Covalt)
Rosenthal v. City of Oakland (August 27, 2020, A156881) 2020 WL 5051440 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff tripped and fell over a defect on a municipal sidewalk next to property owned by GMSR’s client, Street 41, LLC. He sued the City of Oakland and Street 41 for failing to maintain the sidewalk. The trial court granted the City’s and Street 41’s
In re Marriage of DeSouza (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 25
In re Marriage of DeSouza (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 25, First District, Division Three. While dissolution proceedings were pending, the ex-husband of GMSR’s client had two friends buy bitcoins with the community’s assets without at the time disclosing the purchases to his ex-wife. One friend transferred
Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130
Plaintiff had an at-will contract with a non-party to develop a drug based on a certain active ingredient. Defendant Biogen reached its own deal with that non-party to settle patent disputes and to license the same active ingredient—requiring that the at-will contract with Plaintiff be
© 2021 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
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.