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.
MAG Aerospace Industries v. Precise Aerospace Manufacturing (9th Cir., April 26, 2021, No. 19-55932) __ Fed.Appx. __ [2021 WL 1611523]
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., March 1, 2021, No. 19-35859) 2021 WL 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) __ Cal.App.5th __
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. (Jan. 27, 2021, No. B297393) Cal.App.5th.
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”
Southern California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1
In 1957, GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, sold campus land to the Claremont School of Theology (CST). CST agreed that if it ever wanted to sell the land or ceased using it, the Colleges could buy it back for the original sale price, plus some
Slaight v. Tata Consultancy Services (9th Cir. 2021) __ Fed Appx. __ [2021 WL 72126]
Tata Consultancy Services, a global IT company headquartered in India, went to trial in 2018 against a class of plaintiffs claiming discriminatory termination. The plaintiffs said the company had a “pattern or practice” of intentionally discriminating against non-South Asian workers due to their race or
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
© 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.