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
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
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
Ray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021, No. 20-55989) 2021 WL 4902357
Plaintiffs injured in a car accident obtained an assignment of the at-fault driver’s rights and sued the driver’s insurance carrier for bad faith. They alleged that they had sent the carrier a settlement demand letter, but the carrier failed to timely accept. The carrier moved
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”
© 2022 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
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.