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.
A. A. v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2022, No. 20-55960) __ Fed.Appx. __ [2022 WL 822187]
Plaintiff—who was improperly removed by County of Riverside social workers three days after she was born and then returned three days later—filed a Section 1983 putative class action, alleging thousands of other children had been wrongfully seized by the County. Plaintiff engaged in extensive litigation,
Hiraishi v. DeLeon et al. (Mar. 14, 2022, B310395) 2022 WL 761930 [nonpublished opinion]
A high school teacher brought FEHA claims against two school administrators, alleging (1) the principal engaged in gender harassment by granting male teachers work assignments and resources that she would have preferred over her own; and (2) the superintendent failed to investigate plaintiff’s ongoing complaints,
Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946
Ford advertised its Super Duty F-250 truck as the heavyweight champion of its class, with unprecedented hauling and towing capacities. Plaintiff saw those ads, and decided to buy one because he was planning to tow heavy loads into the mountains for extended camping trips. But
Baral v. Schnitt (Jan. 28, 2022, B298050) 2022 WL 263108 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client and his co-investors agreed to sell their accounting software business. After the sale closed, an investor who had received $3.6 million for his share sued the client for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that he had forced the sale against the
Basamah v. Los Angeles County Transit Authority (Nov. 12, 2021, B291022) 2021 WL 5275768 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal affirmed a defense verdict in a case alleging that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority negligently caused the death of plaintiff’s son, who was killed in a car accident after getting off a bus. The Court rejected claims of insufficient
Oakes v. Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 486
Following a fender-bender, plaintiff was treated for minor injuries covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Plaintiff nevertheless sued the other driver’s employer (GMSR’s client) for millions of dollars, and rejected a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer. The jury awarded plaintiff less than the
Hansen v. Hilton & Hyland (Oct. 21, 2021, B305592) 2021 WL 4899199 [nonpublished opinion]
A flood damaged a home while it was in escrow. The real estate agent, representing both the buyer and the sellers, drafted an addendum to the purchase agreement to address how repairs would be made and paid for by the sellers’ insurance carrier. After the
Ray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir., Oct. 21, 2021, No. 20-55989) __ Fed.Appx. __ [2021 WL 4902357]
Plaintiffs injured in a car accident obtained an assignment of the at-fault driver’s rights and sued the driver’s insurance carrier for bad faith. They alleged that they had sent the carrier a settlement demand letter, but the carrier failed to timely accept. The carrier moved
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (2021) 142 S.Ct. 4 (per curiam)
GMSR convinced the Court to direct entry of judgment in favor of a Union City police officer based on qualified immunity. The officer had been summoned by a terrified 911 caller barricaded in a room reporting someone using a chainsaw to break down the door.
Carachure v. Scott (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 16
A plaintiff was seriously injured in an auto accident. Her counsel demanded that the defendant and the defendant’s insurance carrier settle the plaintiff’s injury claim by paying the full $15,000 policy limit. The carrier accepted and complied with all the demand’s short-fuse conditions, thereby dashing
© 2022 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.