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.
Varney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (9th Cir. 2021) 838 Fed.Appx. 777816
Plaintiff’s attorney in this asbestos case presented a declaration just before plaintiff’s death, purporting to identify the manufacturers of products he was exposed to decades earlier. Plaintiff signed the document the day before he died. The Ninth Circuit held that the document did not fit
Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078
GMSR convinced the Court of Appeal to reverse a $15 million punitive damages award against GMSR’s client in a case involving alleged exposure to asbestos-cement pipe. The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was an exception to the “officer, director, or managing agent”
B.Q. v. Mesa Union School Dist. (Cal.App., Dec. 2, 2020, No. B303351) 2020 WL 7052293 [nonpublished opinion]
On the heels of a Ninth Circuit victory relating to the same events, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a student’s discrimination claim for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. Deciding an issue of first impression, the Second District
Mata v. Liberty Utilities (Nov. 19, 2020, B293479) 2020 WL ___ [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff claimed take-home asbestos injury from his father’s job at GMSR’s client, a water utility, where the father occasionally cut asbestos pipe. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court struck the punitive damages on the ground that there was no evidence that
Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130
Plaintiff had an at-will contract with a non-party to develop a drug based on a certain active ingredient. Defendant Biogen reached its own deal with that non-party to settle patent disputes and to license the same active ingredient—requiring that the at-will contract with Plaintiff be
Hishmeh Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Porterville (June 22, 2020, F074356, F074357, F077323) 2020 WL 3410926
Plaintiffs were struck by a car while crossing a street near an inoperative streetlight. GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison, serviced the streetlight. Plaintiffs sued, alleging that Edison was negligent in allowing the light to be off. On summary judgment, the trial court ruled that Edison
Moore v. Teed (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 280
GMSR won a published decision for our tech-executive client, following his win at trial against a deceitful real estate agent. The agent’s appeal conceded liability for misleading our client into a major purchase-renovation deal on false pretenses—but he attacked all the remedies. He said the
Picazzo v. C.W. Driver, Inc. (Feb. 28, 2020, B289070) 2020 WL 967087 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client, a workers’ compensation carrier, paid benefits to an injured employee of its insured, a security company. The employee sued others for negligence, including the university where he had been assigned to work for a number of years. The jury found the university at
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
Wood v. Sparks Enterprises LP (Oct. 2, 2019, G056181) 2019 WL 4854837 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff filed a negligence action against GMSR’s client, a shopping center owner, alleging that he was injured when he walked into a pole in a landscaped area separating a parking lot from the sidewalk. A jury found in favor of the property owner. Plaintiff appealed,
© 2021 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.