California’s anti-SLAPP statute is a powerful tool. It allows the trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims very early, if the claims arise from an act in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue, unless the plaintiff can show a probability of success. There’s been an explosion of anti-SLAPP rulings in recent years, and many of those rulings make their way to the appellate courts. GMSR has successfully handled anti-SLAPP appeals addressing an array of issues.
Aguilar v. Goldstein (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1152
Breach of fiduciary duty claim not barred by anti-SLAPP statute, because it did not “arise from” earlier lawsuit filed by defendants
Williams v. County of Los Angeles (Apr. 16, 2012, B229683) 2012 WL 1260163
Court of Appeal affirms anti-SLAPP victory for Commission, County, and former fire chief in civil rights suit
Court of Appeal affirms anti-SLAPP judgment in favor of GMSR’s clients
Williams v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2797 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. Plaintiff was a lay advocate, representing public employees before the Civil Service Commission. After the Commission banned him from appearing before
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (Mar. 30, 2011, B223345) 2011 WL 1138420
Anti-SLAPP attorney fee award for County of Los Angeles affirmed
Roosen v. Farrell (Aug. 27, 2010, B209873) 2010 WL 3371510
Court of Appeal affirms order granting lawyer’s anti-SLAPP motion in malicious prosecution action
Court of Appeal affirms order granting lawyer’s anti-SLAPP motion in malicious prosecution action
Roosen v. Farrell (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7115 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution action against GMSR’s attorney client under the anti-SLAPP statute. The malicious prosecution action
Price v. Stossel (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 992
Ninth Circuit holds that district court erred in dismissing GMSR’s client’s express defamation claim against ABC on anti-SLAPP grounds.
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (July 1, 2009, B208715) 2009 WL 1875266
Court of Appeal reverses denial of anti-SLAPP motion for GMSR clients
In re Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467
California Supreme Court affirms ownership of church property under neutral principles of law
Gallanis-Politis v. Medina (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 600
Scope of contractual limitations on lost profit damages (settled before decision)
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
GMSR represents insurers on appeal effectively and efficiently. We also collaborate with our clients and trial counsel on strategy for coverage, contribution and bad faith litigation before appeals begin.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2026 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
Orange County
555 Anton Blvd, Suite 150
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
P: (310) 859-7811
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.