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.
Sullivan v. Southern California Edison Company (July 12, 2018, D073454) [2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4723]
A car crashed into the back of a laundromat, damaging the building’s structure and electrical panel. GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison, sent a representative to inspect the panel and he decided to leave the electrical power turned on. The next day, while repairing structural damage,
Padda v. Superior Court (June 11, 2018, E070522) __ Cal.App.5th__ [2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 607]
With trial less than two weeks away in this business dispute between physicians and a medical group, GMSR’s clients learned that a key expert witness had become seriously ill, required immediate surgery, and would be unavailable to testify for at least six weeks. When the
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Plaintiff was injured in a car accident with a Los Angeles County deputy public defender who was on his way home from work. Although employers are generally not liable for accidents arising from an employee’s commute, the plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, the County, contending it
Easley v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2018) 890 F.3d 851
Plaintiff Michael Easley jumped out of a car that had just led police officers on a high speed chase, and ran down a residential street. As he ran, he pulled a gun out of his pants, raised it across his body, and threw it like
Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water District (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1198
Homeowners sued GMSR’s client, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), as well as other water districts, for nuisance and inverse condemnation, asserting that water provided by MWD to their homes contained disinfectants that caused pinhole leaks in their plumbing. In a published opinion, the Court of
Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes (Apr. 23, 2018, B279198) [2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2724]
The client owns property in Rolling Hills, a community subject to a patchwork of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. The defendants—the community’s homeowners association and several of its board members—took the position that a tree-trimming covenant applied to every property in the community, including the client’s.
Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 786
The plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison, after renovations to her bathroom caused her to feel a slight tingle of electricity when she touched her showerhead, caused by neutral-to-earth voltage from a nearby Edison substation. She won a $4 million jury verdict on multiple
Eleanor Licensing LLC v. Classic Recreations LLC (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 599
The clients had licensed their rights to produce replicas of Eleanor, the car that played a starring role in Gone in 60 Seconds, to the defendants. In return for the license, the defendants gave the clients, among other things, the first licensed replica they built.
Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II, L.P. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 987
In negotiations over the defendants’ purchase of the client’s family business, the client agreed to accept, as part of the purchase price, $2.5 million in stock of one of the acquiring companies—but he required that the defendants agree to redeem the stock at a fixed
In re Marriage of Wendelburg (Dec. 20, 2017, B270355) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8761]
In a marital dissolution action, the husband argued that the wife’s shares in a corporation she co-owned with her father were community property because the wife, GMSR’s client, acquired them during marriage and a corporate document stated that she had provided half of the consideration
© 2018 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
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
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.