Civil Procedure

Procedural issues create many traps for the unwary: Irregularities in trial court proceedings or ambiguous verdicts may require a new trial; failing to raise an objection in the trial court can foreclose appellate review of an issue; a settlement that purports to preserve the right to appeal can moot the appeal. The list goes on and on. GMSR is experienced in spotting procedural defects and navigating nuances that can be dispositive on appeal. For that reason, trial counsel and clients often consult with GMSR’s appellate lawyers as a case progresses, in order to maximize their chances of success in an eventual appeal. GMSR’s appellate lawyers have also gotten appeals dismissed, revived litigation that should not have been dismissed, and successfully developed arguments for affirmance or reversal, all based on procedural issues.

Pacific Western Bank v. Audio-Visual Entertainment, Inc. et al., No. B278122, and Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions Inc., et al., No. B278076

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

Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment entitling bank to collect on defaulted loans

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. (Dec. 11, 2018, No. G054522) [2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8335]

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

Court of Appeal affirms trial court’s order voiding jurisdictionally invalid default judgment

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

Padda v. Superior Court (June 11, 2018, E070522) __ Cal.App.5th__ [2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 607]

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

Court of Appeal issues peremptory writ directing trial court to vacate order denying continuance of trial

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

Court of Appeal reverses $13.9 million jury award and orders entry of defense judgment for GMSR’s client in employee commuting case

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

Jun 19, 2017 Laurie J. Hepler
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California’s Assertion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Drugmaker

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (June 19, 2017, Case No. 16-466), the United States Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that California lacks “specific” personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company, reversing a 4-3 decision last year by the California Supreme Court.  The case arises

Jun 19, 2017 Laurie J. Hepler
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California’s Assertion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Drugmaker

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (June 19, 2017, Case No. 16-466), the United States Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that California lacks “specific” personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company, reversing a 4-3 decision last year by the California Supreme Court.  The case arises

Who We Serve

PUBLIC ENTITIES

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.

Read More
INSURERS

Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.

Read More
BUSINESSES

GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.

Read More
TRIAL COUNSEL

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.

Read More
INDIVIDUALS

GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.

Read More