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.

Berroteran v. Superior Court (Oct. 29, 2019, B296639) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2019 WL 5558830]

In a published decision that disagrees with a sister court decision, Wahlgren v. Coleco Industries, Inv. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 543 (Wahlgren), the Court of Appeal granted GMSR’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate in limine orders that had excluded

Court of Appeal grants petition for writ of mandate, vacating exclusion of key deposition evidence

In a published decision that disagrees with a sister court decision, Wahlgren v. Coleco Industries, Inv. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 543 (Wahlgren), the Court of Appeal granted GMSR’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate in limine orders that had excluded

Wood v. Sparks Enterprises LP (Oct. 2, 2019, G056181) 2019 WL 4854837 (nonpublished opinion)

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against GMSR’s client, a shopping center owner, alleging that he was injured when he walked into a pole in a landscaped area separating a parking lot from the sidewalk.  A jury found in favor of the property owner.  Plaintiff appealed,

Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s property owner client

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against GMSR’s client, a shopping center owner, alleging that he was injured when he walked into a pole in a landscaped area separating a parking lot from the sidewalk.  A jury found in favor of the property owner.  Plaintiff appealed,

Daniels v. Southern California Edison Co. (No. E069183, July 8, 2019) 2019 WL 2912505

A firefighter was electrocuted when he touched the firetruck he was working on at the same time his crewmember rotated the truck’s aerial ladder into a 25-foot-high power line owned by GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison.  The firefighter sued, alleging that Edison negligently failed to

Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s utility client, finding no basis for liability following firefighter’s accident.

A firefighter was electrocuted when he touched the firetruck he was working on at the same time his crewmember rotated the truck’s aerial ladder into a 25-foot-high power line owned by GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison.  The firefighter sued, alleging that Edison negligently failed to

GMSR’s client faced loss of her home on account of an unauthorized home equity loan from which she received nothing. Judgment for the lender reversed.

The issue on appeal was whether evidence of the homeowner’s execution of a written agreement with a third party ratified the third party’s previously unauthorized execution of a trust deed on her home.  Since a trust deed must be in writing, under the “equal dignities

FOROUGH ETELAEI, as Trustee, et al., v. FIRST GENERAL BANK (Cal. Ct. App., June 18, 2019, No. B287186) 2019 WL 2511405

The issue on appeal was whether evidence of the homeowner’s execution of a written agreement with a third party ratified the third party’s previously unauthorized execution of a trust deed on her home.  Since a trust deed must be in writing, under the “equal dignities

Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense

Court of Appeal affirms $3.9 million judgment on commercial guaranty, holding that federal law bars guarantor’s assertion of “sham guaranty” defense.

Ninth Circuit grants GMSR’s motion to dismiss interlocutory appeal from discovery ruling

GMSR, representing the defendant seeking to take the deposition, moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion argued that Ninth Circuit case law precludes a party from appealing an interlocutory discovery ruling, and that the same rationale should apply to non-party IMS because its objections were identical to Valley’s.

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