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.

16 Case Results
Filter

Orcutt v. MacDonald (Mar. 16, 2023, B319016) 2023 WL 2532025

GMSR wins affirmance of anti-SLAPP order, striking malicious prosecution claim against individual who assisted police officers

Baral v. Schnitt (Jan. 28, 2022, B298050) 2022 WL 263108

Court of Appeal reverses $3.5 million jury award and JNOV denial, ordering entry of judgment for GMSR’s client

Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Aug, 22, 2014, B247957) 2014 WL 4162789 [nonpublished opinion]

Court of Appeal affirms application of anti-SLAPP statute to summary suspension of medical staff privileges

Nama Holdings v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Aug. 7, 2013, B238449) 2013 WL 4034358 [nonpublished opinion]

A real estate LLC retained GMSR’s law firm client to represent its managers in a suit brought by one of the LLC’s investors. Arbitrators ultimately held that the managers had not acted in good faith which, among other things, arguably negated the LLC’s obligation to

Aguilar v. Goldstein (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1152

Breach of fiduciary duty claim not barred by anti-SLAPP statute, because it did not “arise from” earlier lawsuit filed by defendants

2012

Williams v. County of Los Angeles (Apr. 16, 2012, B229683) 2012 WL 1260163 [nonpublished opinion]

“Plaintiff was a lay advocate, representing public employees before the Civil Service Commission. After the Commission banned him from appearing before it and its hearing officers for disruptive behavior, plaintiff sued multiple parties, including the Commission, the County of Los Angeles, and a former fire

2011

Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (Mar. 30, 2011, B223345) 2011 WL 1138420 [nonpublished opinion]

In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, and remanded the case for an award of fees to the County. After the briefing on the fee motion was ostensibly

Roosen v. Farrell (Aug. 27, 2010, B209873) 2010 WL 3371510 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution action against GMSR’s attorney client under the anti-SLAPP statute. The malicious prosecution action was based on cross-claims that the attorney had filed against the plaintiff in a complex network of probate proceedings.

Price v. Stossel (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 992

Ninth Circuit holds that district court erred in dismissing GMSR’s client’s express defamation claim against ABC on anti-SLAPP grounds.