Case Search
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.
Topete v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region (unpublished, 3rd Civ. C074716)
Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against GMSR’s client, Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, and several individual physicians. She sought to hold Sutter Health liable for negligent hiring or retention of a physician [the physicians? One of the physicians?]. The court of appeal affirmed summary
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four [published]
A truck driver allegedly caused an accident. Unbeknownst to his employer, he had a significant pre-employment history of alcohol and drug abuse and vehicle accidents. This was not discovered by a third-party which handled pre-employment screenings. The driver also had some minor accidents and speeding
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (April 24, 2017, Ninth Circuit No. 15-56606) __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 1431084.
This landmark preemption decision will benefit municipalities across the country. Two disabled persons sued GMSR’s client, the City of Los Angeles, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RHA), alleging that a bus facility was
Wind Dancer Prod. Group v. Pictures, 2017 Cal.App. LEXIS 268 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Mar. 22, 2017)
GMSR’s clients, the creators and producers of the hit television show Home Improvement, sued Disney for underpaying their profit participation. Disney obtained summary judgment on the basis of an “incontestability clause” in its contract with plaintiffs that, Disney claimed and the trial court found, absolutely
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Great American Ins. Co. (Mar. 1, 2017, B264238)
Hundreds of diners developed hepatitis, and several died, after consuming tainted green onions. Two insurers of a company in the distribution chain agreed to transfer control of (at least) that company’s defense to the insurer with greater policy limits. Years later, a jury found that
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Feb. 27, 2017, B263095) __ Cal.App.5th __
A physician sued a hospital and some doctors, alleging that the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges was motivated by retaliatory animus. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the suit under the anti-SLAPP statute. On the first prong, it held that the claims arose out of
L.A. County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (Dec. 29, 2016, S226645)
In a 4-3 decision in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU) the California Supreme Court agreed with GMSR’s client in holding that everything in attorney invoices in pending cases, including aggregate amounts charged to a client, are protected by the attorney client
Malbrue v. County of Los Angeles, 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8977
Plaintiff sued for the wrongful death of his father who died while in police custody. The court granted summary judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, after plaintiff failed timely to introduce an expert declaration in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed a
Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213
An LLC member brought suit alleging that another member (an attorney) had breached his fiduciary duty and committed legal malpractice. The trial court ordered those claims to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in the LLC’s operating agreement, which required arbitration of all claims “arising out of”
Santa Clarita Org. for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1084
In a published opinion, Division 2 of the Second DCA upheld the right of GMSR’s client, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, to acquire all of the stock of a privately held water company via inverse condemnation, and rejected the contention that the transaction violated various
© 2017 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.