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.
Bioquest Venture Leasing Company-A, N.V. v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc. (Nov. 5, 2009, B201454) 2009 WL 3719534 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff sued GMSR’s client VivoRx for breach of a biotechnology license agreement that was silent on choice of law. VivoRx argued that California law applied, and that it barred plaintiff’s claims as untimely, while plaintiff insisted that Massachusetts law governed the lawsuit, and that its
In re Marriage of Feliciano (May 15, 2009, G039357) 2009 WL 1364420 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client Janna Feliciano and musician Jose Feliciano divorced in 1978. Their community property included royalty rights for dozens of Janna’s and Jose’s compositions and Jose’s recordings, including still-popular original works such as Feliz Navidad and covers of other songs such as Light My Fire.
Loerch v. Regents of the University of Cal. (Apr. 7, 2009, D051154) 2009 WL 924420 [nonpublished opinion]
The plaintiff sought reversal of a defense verdict in medical malpractice suit. He faulted the trial court for failing to investigate allegations of juror misconduct midway through trial and for denying his motion to augment his expert’s declaration. He also challenged a ruling that sustained
Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1291
Plaintiff’s settlement mooted her appeal from order denying class certification in wage and hour suit
City of Riverside v. Superior Court (Nov. 21, 2008, E046794) 2008 WL 4958685 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff was injured when she fell on a street in Riverside County. She presented a timely claim to the wrong public entity but the trial court granted relief from the Government Tort Claims filing deadline with respect to the County. The Court of Appeal issued
Schulman v. Regents of the University of Cal. (Oct. 22, 2008, B195349) 2008 WL 4647872 [nonpublished opinion]
The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against GMSR’s client, the Regents of the University of California. After the Regents moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought two continuances for filing her opposition. The trial court granted her initial request, but denied the second and
Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara (Mar. 4, 2008, B180880) 2008 WL 565025 [nonpublished opinion]
Two family agribusiness entities sued Santa Barbara County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a supposed civil rights deprivation based on the County’s delineation of a wetland on a large parcel of land that one of the plaintiffs owned and the other wanted to farm.
Moore v. County of Los Angeles (Jan. 24, 2008, B189274) 2008 WL 192294 [nonpublished opinion]
Sexual harassment action – juror misconduct and evidentiary errors
Krishnan v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Jan. 23, 2008, B194755) 2008 WL 186652 [nonpublished opinion]
Defendants moved for summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim. Plaintiff filed his opposition more than a week late, asking the trial court to excuse the lateness because of an unspecified calendaring error by his counsel’s office. The trial court denied the request and granted
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835
Interpretation of allegedly ambiguous jury verdict
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.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
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.
© 2024 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.