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.
Beaudreau v. Burnham USA Equities, Inc. et al. (Aug. 23, 2022, G059971) 2022 WL 3593351 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff was injured in a strip-mall walkway when a mall patron pulling into a perpendicular parking space pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, causing the vehicle to jump a concrete wheel-stop and curb. In his personal injury suit against the mall owner, plaintiff alleged
Friend of Camden, Inc. et al. v. Brandt (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1054
GMSR’s clients own a combined 50% interest in a limited liability company (LLC). Following years of dissension with the holders of the remaining 50% interest, one of GMSR’s clients sued for a decree of judicial dissolution. The holders of the opposing 50% interest filed a
Rycz v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824
A tort defendant moved pre-trial to transfer the case from San Francisco superior court to San Diego superior court for the “convenience of the witnesses” under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c). He argued that most of the witnesses were based in San
Meiri v. Shamtoubi (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 606
A trust beneficiary filed and litigated a trust contest, despite multiple warnings that the contest was barred by Probate Code section 16061.7’s 120-day deadline and that if the trust beneficiary continued to press the contest, her interest in the trust would be invalidated under the
Quintero v. Ford Motor Company (9th Cir. July 21, 2022, No. 20-55883) 2022 WL 2869771
GMSR’s clients, two retirees who unwittingly leased a defective car, secured favorable jury verdicts on two claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: one for breach of express warranty and another for breach of implied warranty. Recognizing that they were not entitled to a double
Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985
As part of enforcing a judgment, a bank levied on the judgment debtor’s individual retirement account. The debtor did not file a timely claim of exemption—and when the institution holding the account asked the trial court for directions on whether to comply with the levy,
Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Letwak & Bennett (May 16, 2022, G059646) 2022 WL 1534602 [nonpublished opinion]
In a 2013 lawsuit, GMSR’s bank client recovered a default judgment for damages and nearly $400,000 in attorney fees. Seven years later, the defendant moved to set aside the judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that there were procedural defects in
Foxcroft Productions, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, LLC (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1119
The creators of the 1970s hit television series Columbo were contractually entitled to a share of the show’s net profits—but the studio failed to pay them anything for decades, representing that the show had no net profits. Eventually, the studio sent an accounting statement revealing that it
A. A. v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2022, No. 20-55960) 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,
© 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.