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.
Court of Appeal reverses judgment, ordering Proposition 51 apportionment retrial
GMSR’s clients leased a vehicle that proved to be a lemon and sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer sent the clients a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer, and they accepted. Under the settlement agreement, the manufacturer
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment, holding that insurance policy does not cover infringement of models’ rights of publicity
Court of Appeal reverses order denying settlement enforcement and interprets settlement under CCP 998 in favor of GMSR’s clients
In a wrongful death case, the decedent’s family sued GMSR’s truck-driver client and his employer for negligence. Before trial, the truck driver disappeared. When plaintiffs served requests for admissions (RFAs) on the driver regarding liability and he failed to answer, plaintiffs successfully moved the trial
GMSR persuades Court of Appeal to set aside $7.619 million judgment against its client
GMSR’s client, Broadcom subsidiary LSI Corporation, sued a former employee for breaching a confidentiality agreement. Among other things, LSI alleged that the employee disclosed LSI’s confidential information to his wife’s company by retaining LSI’s confidential material when he left LSI, and then posting that information
GMSR secures reversal of anti-SLAPP dismissal on the basis of circumstantial evidence
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, allows the requesting party to recover its costs of proof—including potentially substantial attorney fees—when the other side unreasonably denies requests for admissions and the requesting party proves the truth of those matters at trial. In the latest issue of
A tort defendant moved pre-trial to transfer the case from San Francisco superior court to San Diego superior court for the “convenience of the witnesses” under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c). He argued that most of the witnesses were based in San
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
555 Anton Blvd, Suite 150
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
P: (310) 859-7811
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.
