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.
Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946
Ford advertised its Super Duty F-250 truck as the heavyweight champion of its class, with unprecedented hauling and towing capacities. Plaintiff saw those ads, and decided to buy one because he was planning to tow heavy loads into the mountains for extended camping trips. But
Baral v. Schnitt (Jan. 28, 2022, B298050) 2022 WL 263108 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client and his co-investors agreed to sell their accounting software business. After the sale closed, an investor who had received $3.6 million for his share sued the client for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that he had forced the sale against the
Basamah v. Los Angeles County Transit Authority (Nov. 12, 2021, B291022) 2021 WL 5275768 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal affirmed a defense verdict in a case alleging that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority negligently caused the death of plaintiff’s son, who was killed in a car accident after getting off a bus. The Court rejected claims of insufficient
Hansen v. Hilton & Hyland (Oct. 21, 2021, B305592) 2021 WL 4899199 [nonpublished opinion]
A flood damaged a home while it was in escrow. The real estate agent, representing both the buyer and the sellers, drafted an addendum to the purchase agreement to address how repairs would be made and paid for by the sellers’ insurance carrier. After the
Ferra v. Gilmore (Aug. 20, 2021, B303592) 2021 WL 3700420 [nonpublished opinion]
Maria Ferra paid $1.6 million that she did not believe was owed, to stop a deed-of-trust holder from foreclosing on property Maria had sold to a third party under an indemnity and security agreement. Maria then sued the deed-of-trust holder to recover the wrongfully-demanded money.
Johnson v. Williams (July 7, 2021, C088920) 2021 WL 2819851 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client admitted negligence arising out of a low speed rear-end collision, but denied that plaintiffs suffered any resulting damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury’s judgment of no damages, and rejected the claim that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing questions
Almendarez v. Superior Court (May 11, 2021, G059881) 2021 WL 1881641 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiffs opted out of a consumer class action to pursue individual relief. The trial court, however, mistakenly believed that plaintiffs were still members of the class. During the hearing on defendant’s demurrer, the trial court stayed the case on its own motion, refusing to hear
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”
Carracela v. Southern California Edison Co. (Dec. 11, 2020, B294297) 2020 WL 7296575 [nonpublished opn.]
A construction worker was electrocuted when his crewmember moved the aerial lift basket he was riding in close to a 60-foot power line owned by GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison. The construction worker sued, alleging that Edison had negligently failed to remove or de-energize the
© 2022 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.