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.
Horton by Horton v. City of Santa Maria (9th Cir. 2019) 915 F.3d 592
This case concerns the attempted suicide of a jailed pretrial detainee.
Dondlinger v. Los Angeles County Regional Park & Open Space Dist. (2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 994
Suit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District. The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal. California Court of Appeal Opinion – View Document
O’Gara Coach Co., LLC v. Ra (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1115
Before he became an attorney, the principal attorney in the law firm now representing a former employee against his employer was the employer’s president and chief operating officer. He supervised outside attorneys conducting an investigation of the conduct that led to the employee’s dismissal. The
Pryor et al. v. Fitness International, LLC (Jan. 3, 2019, B287329) 2019 WL 92775 [nonpublished opinion]
An employee of GMSR’s client, a health club, took heroin during his work-shift. Finding him no longer fit to perform his job, the health club’s manager ordered him to leave the premises. The intoxicated employee then drove away from the club striking and mortally injuring
Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Audio Visual Entertainment, Inc. (Dec. 31, 2018, B278076, B278122) 2018 WL 6839451 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client, a bank, sued borrowers and a guarantor to collect on long-outstanding loans. The borrowers and guarantor attempted to avoid liability by challenging the admissibility of the bank’s evidence of the loans, chain of title, and outstanding balance. The trial court granted summary judgment
Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 102
Plaintiff sued a general contractor for defective construction work at the Anaheim hotel she owned; the general contractor cross-complained against a group of subcontractors. After settling with the general contractor, plaintiff substituted in as the real party in interest on the general contractor’s cross-complaint and
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59
A large law firm, Sheppard Mullin, had for many years provided advice to a client on an as-needed basis. Sheppard then undertook the defense of a new client, J-M, in a suit brought by the longtime client. Sheppard never disclosed the conflict to either client.
Sullivan v. Southern California Edison Company (July 12, 2018, D073454) 2018 WL 3385302 [nonpublished opinion]
A car crashed into the back of a laundromat, damaging the building’s structure and electrical panel. GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison, sent a representative to inspect the panel and he decided to leave the electrical power turned on. The next day, while repairing structural damage,
Padda v. Superior Court (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 25
With trial less than two weeks away in this business dispute between physicians and a medical group, GMSR’s clients learned that a key expert witness had become seriously ill, required immediate surgery, and would be unavailable to testify for at least six weeks. When the
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Plaintiff was injured in a car accident with a Los Angeles County deputy public defender who was on his way home from work. Although employers are generally not liable for accidents arising from an employee’s commute, the plaintiff sued GMSR’s client, the County, contending it
© 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.