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.
MAG Aerospace Industries v. Precise Aerospace Manufacturing (9th Cir. 2021) 856 Fed.Appx. 709
GMSR represents Precise Aerospace Manufacturing, Inc., a company that makes plastic parts from specialized molds owned by plaintiff MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC. MAG sued Precise for not delivering parts and molds on time and, after a bench trial, recovered $1.3 million it incurred in efforts
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (March 22, 2021, B292794) 2021 WL 1084783 [nonpublished opinion]
A physician brought administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a medical peer review determination that upheld the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges. His mandamus arguments, however, challenged a different decision than what the parties had agreed the peer review hearing committee would decide—the
Varney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (9th Cir. 2021) 838 Fed.Appx. 288
Plaintiff’s attorney in this asbestos case presented a declaration just before plaintiff’s death, purporting to identify the manufacturers of products he was exposed to decades earlier. Plaintiff signed the document the day before he died. The Ninth Circuit held that the document did not fit
County of Los Angeles Department of Health v. Superior Court (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 478
In a published opinion, the Second District Court of Appeal has granted GMSR’s petition for a writ of mandate on behalf of the County of Los Angeles and its Health Officers. The Court reversed a superior court injunction barring the County from enforcing a Covid-19
Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078
GMSR convinced the Court of Appeal to reverse a $15 million punitive damages award against GMSR’s client in a case involving alleged exposure to asbestos-cement pipe. The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was an exception to the “officer, director, or managing agent”
Southern California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1
In 1957, GMSR’s clients, the Claremont Colleges, sold campus land to the Claremont School of Theology (CST). CST agreed that if it ever wanted to sell the land or ceased using it, the Colleges could buy it back for the original sale price, plus some
Slaight v. Tata Consultancy Services (9th Cir. 2021) 842 Fed.Appx. 66
Tata Consultancy Services, a global IT company headquartered in India, went to trial in 2018 against a class of plaintiffs claiming discriminatory termination. The plaintiffs said the company had a “pattern or practice” of intentionally discriminating against non-South Asian workers due to their race or
Lopez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Dec. 14, 2020, B296598) 2020 WL 7332045 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff sued his public entity employer for disability discrimination and failure to participate in the interactive process after the employer determined that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his job in light of doctor-imposed restrictions on his movement. The Court of Appeal affirmed
Carracela v. Southern California Edison Co. (Dec. 11, 2020, B294297) 2020 WL 7296575 [nonpublished opinion]
A construction worker was electrocuted when his crewmember moved the aerial lift basket he was riding in close to a 60-foot power line owned by GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison. The construction worker sued, alleging that Edison had negligently failed to remove or de-energize the
B.Q. v. Mesa Union School Dist. (Dec. 2, 2020, No. B303351) 2020 WL 7052293 [nonpublished opinion]
On the heels of a Ninth Circuit victory relating to the same events, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a student’s discrimination claim for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. Deciding an issue of first impression, the Second District
© 2023 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.