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.
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (2021) 142 S.Ct. 4 (per curiam)
GMSR convinced the Court to direct entry of judgment in favor of a Union City police officer based on qualified immunity. The officer had been summoned by a terrified 911 caller barricaded in a room reporting someone using a chainsaw to break down the door.
Carachure v. Scott (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 16
A plaintiff was seriously injured in an auto accident. Her counsel demanded that the defendant and the defendant’s insurance carrier settle the plaintiff’s injury claim by paying the full $15,000 policy limit. The carrier accepted and complied with all the demand’s short-fuse conditions, thereby dashing
Estate of Arnold Marks (Oct. 1, 2021, B303281) 2021 WL 4487721 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, has affirmed a probate court ruling in favor of GMSR’s clients in a contest over interpretation of a hand-written will. The testator was not a lawyer and wrote his will informally. He sometimes drew arrows to
Nede Mgmt., Inc. v. Aspen American Ins. Co. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1121
Plaintiff insureds owned a residential property where a squatter died in during a fire. The insureds tendered the defense of the ensuing lawsuit to their insurance carrier, which hired counsel to defend the insureds. Purportedly dissatisfied with appointed counsel’s performance, the insureds demanded independent “Cumis”
Goldberg v. City of Beverly Hills (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2021, No. 20-55962) 2021 WL 4240381
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment in favor of GMSR’s client, the defendant City of Beverly Hills, in an action for false arrest, false imprisonment and violation of constitutional rights. The appellate court agreed with GMSR’s contentions that the plaintiff could muster only unsupported
Begley v. Delta Dental of California (Aug. 31, 2021, A159983) 2021 WL 3878844 [nonpublished opinion]
Delta Dental laid off 33 employees as part of a reorganization. One sued, alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Delta, and GMSR secured an affirmance on appeal. Agreeing with GMSR’s position, the Court of Appeal held that Delta established
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.
Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657
A rogue employee of a title company promoted a Ponzi scheme in which she obtained investments from the appellant, a real estate entrepreneur whom she knew from handling his escrow business. When the scheme collapsed and the appellant purportedly lost about $9 million, he sued
Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 307
Litigation funder Law Finance Group turned to GMSR after the trial court vacated an arbitration award enforcing LFG’s loan agreement with a borrower. On appeal, GMSR argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the award because the borrower failed to seek vacatur within
Jolie v. Superior Court (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1025
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s ongoing divorce proceeding has been handled by a party-compensated private judge sitting as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. Such judges have an ongoing obligation to disclose new paid engagements with counsel representing either side. After several rounds of such
© 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.