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.

12 Case Results
Filter

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,

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

Southern Cal. School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (May 3, 2021, B302452) 2021 WL1731232 [nonpublished opinion]

This was the second appeal arising from efforts by GMSR’s client, the Claremont Colleges, to enforce the buy-back terms of a 1957 land sale agreement with the Claremont School of Theology (CST). (See first appeal.) Although the Colleges prevailed overall, CST recovered fees for an

McKindra v. Tharaldson Financial Group, Inc. (Nov. 11, 2019, E069896) 2019 WL 6125912 [nonpublished opinion]

GMSR’s client, the defendant hotel, admitted negligence after plaintiffs were briefly exposed to bed bugs in their hotel room.  The jury returned a verdict awarding substantial compensatory damages and punitive damages on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for one plaintiff, and compensatory damages

Millennium-Diamond Road Partners, LLC v. Diamond Bar Country Estates Association (Sept. 25, 2019, B285539) 2019 WL 4635158 [nonpublished opinion]

GMSR’s clients acquired four parcels of land and began developing residential homesites—a process that requires frequent pre-development visits by multiple contractors.  Because the land was not adjacent to public streets, the developers and their visitors accessed it by driving through a guarded gate and then

Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes (Apr. 23, 2018, B278198) 2018 WL 1905035 [nonpublished opinion]

The client owns property in Rolling Hills, a community subject to a patchwork of covenants, conditions, and restrictions.  The defendants—the community’s homeowners association and several of its board members—took the position that a tree-trimming covenant applied to every property in the community, including the client’s. 

Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213

An LLC member brought suit alleging that another member (an attorney) had breached his fiduciary duty and committed legal malpractice.  The trial court ordered those claims to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in the LLC’s operating agreement, which required arbitration of all claims “arising out of”

Dromy v. Assil (Dec. 22, 2015, B259489) 2015 WL 9311777 [nonpublished opinion]

In the trial on cross-actions arising from loan transactions, Mr. Poster’s client recovered $86,890.64 in damages and $371,814 in attorney fees and costs.  Adopting arguments urged by Mr. Poster, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and ordered that his client recover additional attorney fees

Martinez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1038

Plaintiff accepted a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 from GMSR’s client, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The offer provided that each party bear its own costs, but said nothing about attorney fees. The trial court denied plaintiff’s subsequent motion for

Cruz-Carbajal v. Holder (9th Cir. 2011) 428 Fed.Appx. 759

Teaming up as pro bono counsel, husband and wife team Alana Rotter of GMSR and Jonathan Rotter of Kaye Scholer LLP argued that the Board of Immigration Appeals erroneously denied a motion for relief based on ineffective assistance of former counsel. The Ninth Circuit agreed,