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.
Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Marazzo (Oct. 19, 2017, A143364) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7234]
Prometheus, a real estate developer, entered into an agreement with GMSR’s property-owner client that contemplated a residential development in Mountain View on the client’s property. Prometheus sued the property owner for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after the property
Advanced Air Management v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Sep. 6, 2017, B265723) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6133]
After GMSR’s client, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, performed maintenance on a business jet, the jet’s charter operator sued for breach of contract and negligence. Gulfstream petitioned to compel arbitration, relying on the signed jet maintenance terms and conditions, which included a clause requiring arbitration under American
Topete v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region (Aug. 2, 2017, C074716) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5291]
Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against GMSR’s client, Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, and several individual physicians. She sought to hold Sutter Health liable for negligent hiring or retention of a physician. The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment for Sutter Health. It held
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255
A truck driver allegedly caused an accident. Unbeknownst to his employer, he had a significant pre-employment history of alcohol and drug abuse and vehicle accidents. This was not discovered by a third-party which handled pre-employment screenings. The driver also had some minor accidents and speeding
City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1149
This landmark preemption decision will benefit municipalities across the country. Two disabled persons sued GMSR’s client, the City of Los Angeles, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RHA), alleging that a bus facility was
Wind Dancer Production Group v. Walt Disney Pictures (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 56
GMSR’s clients, the creators and producers of the hit television show Home Improvement, sued Disney for underpaying their profit participation. Disney obtained summary judgment on the basis of an “incontestability clause” in its contract with plaintiffs that, Disney claimed and the trial court found, absolutely
Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Great American Ins. Company (March 1, 2017, B264238) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1453]
Hundreds of diners developed hepatitis, and several died, after consuming tainted green onions. Two insurers of a company in the distribution chain agreed to transfer control of (at least) that company’s defense to the insurer with greater policy limits. Years later, a jury found that
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Oct. 6, 2017, B263095) [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6936]
A physician sued a hospital and some doctors, alleging that the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges was motivated by retaliatory animus. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the suit under the anti-SLAPP statute. On the first prong, it held that the claims arose out of
Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282
In a 4-3 decision in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU) the California Supreme Court agreed with GMSR’s client in holding that everything in attorney invoices in pending cases, including aggregate amounts charged to a client, are protected by the attorney client
Malbrue v. Cty. of Los Angeles (Dec. 14, 2016, B264115) [2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8977]
Plaintiff sued for the wrongful death of his father who died while in police custody. The court granted summary judgment for GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, after plaintiff failed timely to introduce an expert declaration in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed a
© 2020 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.