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.

504 Case Results
Filter

Martinez v. The Decurion Corp. (unpublished, 2d Civ. B270616)

Martinez v. The Decurion Corp. (unpublished, 2d Civ. B270616):  A moviegoer tripped over a bench after being evacuated from a movie theater whose fire alarm was triggered by burnt popcorn.  The moviegoer sued the theater, GMSR’s client, for negligence.  She asserted several negligence theories, including

Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Marazzo, et al. (unpublished, 1st Civ. A143364)

Prometheus, a real estate developer, entered into an agreement with GMSR’s property-owner client that contemplated a residential development in Mountain View on the client’s property. Prometheus sued the property owner for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after the property

Advanced Air Management, Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven (Sept. 6, 2017, No. B265723, unpublished).

After GMSR’s client, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, performed maintenance on a business jet, the jet’s charter operator sued for breach of contract and negligence.   Gulfstream petitioned to compel arbitration, relying on the signed jet maintenance terms and conditions, which included a clause requiring arbitration under American

Topete v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region (unpublished, 3rd Civ.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 court of appeal affirmed summary judgment for Sutter Health.  It held

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