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.
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1154
Court of Appeal holds that that attorney bills transmitted to clients are confidential communications protected by the attorney client privilege
Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (Sept. 29, 2014, B251366) 2014 WL 4807719 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal affirmed post-judgment orders denying plaintiff $7.5 million in post-judgment interest over and above what the Hospital paid under the periodic payments judgment in this medical malpractice action when the 5½-year appeals process came to an end. In Leung v. Verdugo Hills
Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 161
Deciding an issue of first impression in a published decision, the Court of Appeal grants GMSR’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal from an $8.5 million fraud judgment under the “disentitlement doctrine”
Nicolas v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2012) 486 Fed.Appx. 699
Plaintiff’s first ex-husband was murdered in the City of Riverside. Plaintiff and two others were charged with the murder. Plaintiff was acquitted. She sued GMSR’s clients, the City of Riverside and two Riverside Police Department detectives, under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of
Bioquest Venture Leasing Company-A, N.V. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (Feb. 22, 2012, B225195) 2012 WL 592438 [nonpublished opinion]
This is GMSR’s second appellate victory in this case. In the first appeal, GMSR successfully argued for the reversal of a $2.5 million judgment on the basis of a statute of limitations defense. However, each side read the court of appeal’s disposition of the case
HBI Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court (Sept. 7, 2011 E053977) 2011 WL 3904639 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client, HBI, had a mechanic’s lien on seven properties that were part of a single, overarching construction project. After foreclosure proceedings wiped out the lien on six of the properties, the owner of the seventh filed a motion asking the trial court to apportion
Leontaritis v. Koursaris, 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5041
No one is supposed to be subjected to judgment without first duly being brought under the jurisdiction of the court. But the superior court refused to set aside a default judgment entered against GMSR’s client in a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit or to recognize that the
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (amicus)
Court of Appeal confirms broad scope of attorney-client and work product protection
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (Mar. 30, 2011, B223345) 2011 WL 1138420 [nonpublished opinion]
In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, and remanded the case for an award of fees to the County. After the briefing on the fee motion was ostensibly
Parks Legal Defense Fund v. City of Huntington Beach (Dec. 13, 2010, G043109) 2010 WL 5066160 [nonpublished opinion]
The City of Huntington Beach, GMSR’s client, planned to construct a state-of-the-art senior center in one of its parks. The trial court halted the project. Among other things, it found that the funding mechanism for the center was an illegal use of fees assessed against
© 2024 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.