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.

14 Case Results

Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Oct. 6, 2017, B263095) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6936]

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

Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5942

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

Nama Holdings v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5592

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

Williams v. County of Los Angeles, 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2797

“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

Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles, 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2389

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, 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7115

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.

Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles, 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5406

Anti-SLAPP law covers public officials’ statements to press and Board of Supervisors; protected by official-duty, official proceeding and common-interest privileges

In re Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467

Property rights of local church leaving larger denomination